linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc

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

Message-ID: <51363ECA.3090909@sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:51:54 -0600
From:	Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	<xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: don't assume that falloc_punch implies falloc
 in test 255

On 03/05/2013 11:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> As of Linux 3.9-rc1, ext4 will support the punch operation on file
> systems using indirect blocks, but it can not support the fallocate
> operation (since there is no way to mark a block as uninitialized
> using indirect block scheme).  This caused test 255 to fail, since it
> only used _require_xfS_io_falloc_punch assuming that all file systems
> which supported punch can also support fallocate.  Fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> ---
>   255 | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/255 b/255
> index 0083963..ae1d8e0 100755
> --- a/255
> +++ b/255
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ _supported_fs generic
>   _supported_os Linux
>
>   _require_xfs_io_falloc_punch
> +_require_xfs_io_falloc
#rcj looks reasonable to me to add this requirement
>   _require_xfs_io_fiemap
>
>   testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$
>

Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@....com>
--
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