linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1403171346280.30625@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:50:46 +0100 (CET)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	tytso@....edu
cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for
 fallocate

On Sun, 16 Mar 2014, tytso@....edu wrote:

> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 22:19:09 -0400
> From: tytso@....edu
> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate
> 
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 03:08:20PM -0400, tytso@....EDU wrote:
> > If I try running the "dev2" branch, without the xfstests collapse
> > range branch pulled in, things are much better (so there's clearly a
> > bug in the ZERO_RANGE code path), but there was still a few more
> > errors than the baseline.  I'm rerunning those tests so I can be sure
> > that the results are repeatable.
> 
> Running the tests with the dev2 branch, which includes all of the
> ext4-specific ZERO_RANGE patches, we see a regression with shared/243
> with 4k and 1k block sizes (as well as 4k in no-journal mode):

Oh, right. This fails because the test really should be deprecated
since we already removed the check in e2fsck - see e2fsprogs commit
010dc7b90d97b93907cbf57b3b44f1c1cad234f6.

In this patch I removed setting the EXT4_INODE_EOFBLOCKS, however I
forgot the mention that in the description. Sorry about that.

Now I am not sure how we want to handle this. Either having it as a
part of this patch just update description, or having the
EXT4_INODE_EOFBLOCKS removal from the fallocate as a separate patch,
which probably make more sense to me. What would you prefer ?

Thanks!
-Lukas

> 
> shared/243 3s ...	[15:09:34] [15:09:35] [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad)
>     --- tests/shared/243.out	2014-03-15 13:45:11.000000000 -0400
>     +++ /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad	2014-03-16 15:09:35.470862837 -0400
>     @@ -1,13 +1,3 @@
>      QA output created by 243
>      wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
>      XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
>     -wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
>     -XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
>     -wrote 40960/40960 bytes at offset 0
>     -XXX Bytes, X ops; XX:XX:XX.X (XXX YYY/sec and XXX ops/sec)
>     ...
>     (Run 'diff -u tests/shared/243.out /results/results-4k/shared/243.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
> 
> 					- 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