| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:10:09 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.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 3/5/13 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. Seems fine to avoid the incorrect failure, so as far as that goes: Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> But we probably can & should still test punch in this situation, so we need a new test to exercise that I guess. -Eric > 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 > _require_xfs_io_fiemap > > testfile=$TEST_DIR/255.$$ > -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists