linux-ext4 - Re: possible dev branch regression

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: <20130318170927.GA5639@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:09:28 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible dev branch regression - xfstest 285/1k

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:10:51AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> The test could do this too, right?
> 
> _need_to_be_root
> 
> and:
> 
> if [ "$FSTYP" == "ext4" ]; then
> 	ORIG_ZEROOUT_KB=`cat /sys/fs/ext4/$TEST_DEV/extent_max_zeroout_kb`
> 	echo 0 > /sys/fs/ext4/$TEST_DEV/extent_max_zeroout_kb
> fi
> 
> and put it back to default in _cleanup:
> 
> 	echo $ORIG_ZEROOUT_KB > /sys/fs/ext4/$TEST_DEV/extent_max_zeroout_kb
> 
> That way we'd be testing seek hole correctness w/o being subject to
> the vagaries in allocator behavior.

Yeah, the question is whether it would be more acceptable to put
ext4-specific hacks like this into the test, or to modify
src/seek_sanity_test.c so that it writes the test block-size block
using pwrite at offset blocksize*42 instead of offset blocksize*10.

I had assumed putting hacks which tweaked sysfs tunables into the
xfstest script itself would be frowned upon, but if that's considered
OK, that would be great.

	      	 		       - Ted

--
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