linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/6] xfstests: fsstress punch should always have FALLOC_FL_KEEP

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]

Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:04:10 +0100 (CET)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] xfstests: fsstress punch should always have
 FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE set

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:18:54 +1100
> From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] xfstests: fsstress punch should always have
>     FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE set
> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:25PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  ltp/fsstress.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/ltp/fsstress.c b/ltp/fsstress.c
> > index 4c3368f..42c8a5a 100644
> > --- a/ltp/fsstress.c
> > +++ b/ltp/fsstress.c
> > @@ -2555,8 +2555,8 @@ punch_f(int opno, long r)
> >  	off = (off64_t)(lr % MIN(stb.st_size + (1024 * 1024), MAXFSIZE));
> >  	off %= maxfsize;
> >  	len = (off64_t)(random() % (1024 * 1024));
> > -	mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE & random();
> >  	e = fallocate(fd, mode, (loff_t)off, (loff_t)len) < 0 ? errno : 0;
> > +	mode |= FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE;
> >  	if (v)
> >  		printf("%d/%d: punch hole(%d) %s %s %lld %lld %d\n",
> >  		       procid, opno, mode,
> 
> NACK. There's nothing wrong with testing a set of parameters that
> should fail in a stress test.

How is this testing ? We do not actually test whether it fails when
it should and vice versa. Only thing that it does right now is
making punch hole testing less efficient.

We do not really test correctness of the arguments in fsstress.

-Lukas

> 
> Regardless, the patch is wrong...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 
--
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