| 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, 26 Feb 2014 07:53:49 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] ext4/242: Add ext4 specific test for fallocate zero range On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:28PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > This is copy of xfs/242. However it's better to make it file system > specific because the range can be zeroes either directly by writing > zeroes, or converting to unwritten extent, so the actual result might > differ from file system to file system. You could say the same thing about preallocation using unwritten extents. Yet, funnily enough, we have generic tests for them because all filesystems currently use unwritten extents for preallocation and behave identically.... This test is no different - all filesystems currently use unwritten extents, and so this test should be generic because all existing filesystems *should* behave the same. When we get a filesystem that zeros rather uses unwritten extents, we can add a new *generic* test that tests for zeroed data extents rather than unwritten extents. All that we will need is a method of checking what behaviour the filesystem has and adding that to a _requires directive to ensure the correct generic fallocate tests are run... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists