linux-ext4 - Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:04:44 +0200
From:	Nikola Ciprich <nikola.ciprich@...uxbox.cz>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2fsprogs - possible regression between 1.42.7 and 1.42.8

Hello Eric,

I'm very sorry for such a late reply, I was a bit busy with other
projects.. Well, I don't really understand what I should do with the
images now :) But if I understand previous discussion well, my problem
is not caused by code regressions, but new tests which were added
to this new version right? The problems failed tests report are related
to filesystems with 1K block size, so unless I use such filesystems,
I'm safe to skip tests and use this new version, especially since I've
been using 1.42.7 till now, right?

Or is there some git commit fixing those issues I should try?

Thanks a lot for Your time and sorry about my lame questions..

with best regards

nikola ciprich


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:10:53PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 7/30/13 9:03 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 7/29/13 11:13 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 7/29/13 3:39 AM, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> > 
> >>> trying to compile latest e2fsprogs and running check under RHEL6-compatible
> >>> distro (centos) fails:
> > 
> >>> r_1024_small_bg: ext2 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> >>> r_ext4_small_bg: ext4 1024 blocksize with small block groups: failed
> > 
> >>> dunno whether this is known issue... will bisect help?
> > 
> >>> with regards
> > 
> >>> nik
> > 
> > 
> >> Ted, these are the same ones I saw, plus one I think (working on getting
> >> all the info).
> > 
> > Sorry this took a while.  Attached is a qcow image of a broken r_1024_small_bg
> > filesystem.  Doing resize2fs -M on it twice should corrupt it, even on x86_64.
> 
> Sorry - the image as attached is not broken, but 2 current resize2fs -M's break it.
> 
> - -Eric
> 
> > (aside: the test is a bit weird, it does:
> > 
> > echo $RESIZE2FS $RESIZE2FS_OPTS -d 31 -M $TMPFILE $SIZE_2 >> $LOG 2>&1
> > 
> > but specifying -M as well as a size doesn't make much sense?)
> > 
> > -Eric
> > 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+HIsAAoJECCuFpLhPd7gT3cP/3YLhpclAhU6UHIW4cqyKhIl
> STIwV3ROZmic5qQb8X6l5etc8ALCs2b5LVYjhlMlZWISkN64pXOhL0lz7coSABM9
> wnZU2y3LntcyGFEg7aEs+sXe2mXqX139NkoNwKfBBPidQ/HdwpnnTdlu4FZeTyrj
> aDHIUGPs2YBbp2QaBhmzl5b7xwEoHCq/XtrH7v7+SHyHEGzIYTn3w96vyXqVYTjs
> csUgeMhFFw58Hq+/03UE13Ig/Et8AqSgonnaEiG3ZKXsDIxhjFxqQPGsdD2BleGd
> Rb/fxnkM0RKhr7xSK3CFWnLQ8LkaUtexazxvr+7BmmgRx8jyQhQj8ASYXzmUuh/S
> RtbnZ3wioxEwCRhr3FP0ZpoOZwbkDWd/UBy407ZBblxVafjLSYbsMHDM7rPrQHoz
> oSo1W4c7sy85pNfCgMnQYyuqik5KVDuQNk/nqEkv6tE1YOb5zXTrpDKjEFgBKYVd
> FpLRk9f0rhoxcwyfZsIY6Wx/4h4rWKnhK6jqL5unDLJitPv405KlNfY28AoFNme4
> ZxwDSddausNm+8u9sZON7cuyhAb70Q8N0W6ECPX8+ie8fvXwPDRSJYPpMXqOBK06
> 35SPqxKlCpT7BGMAqr7+h8qemYdcTS0z7ag2im+MRS1t58AFSsuIyj+IirPWwTUM
> SQRtuG3mOsWE7l93c8bc
> =96jm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------
Ing. Nikola CIPRICH
LinuxBox.cz, s.r.o.
28.rijna 168, 709 00 Ostrava

tel.:   +420 591 166 214
fax:    +420 596 621 273
mobil:  +420 777 093 799
www.linuxbox.cz

mobil servis: +420 737 238 656
email servis: servis@...uxbox.cz
-------------------------------------

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped