linux-ext4 - Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <508E8ECA.2080204@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:12:26 -0500
From:	Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
To:	<xfs@....sgi.com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfstests: test ext4 statfs

   xfstests: test ext4 statfs

     Calculating free blocks in ext[234] is surprisingly hard, since
     by default we report "bsd" style df which doesn't count filesystem
     "overhead" blocks as used.

     With a lot of code dedicated to sorting out what to report as
     free, things tend to go wrong surprisingly often.

     Here's a test to actually try to stop the next regression.  ;)

     NB: For bsddf, the kernel currently does not count journal blocks
     as overhead; it probably should.  But the test below looks to have
     the result within 1% of perfection, so it still passes even if
     the kernel doesn't count the journal against free blocks.

Eric,

This patch has been committed to git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests, 
master branch, commit 0b2ab695.

Thanks
--Rich



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html