linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: fix overly-pessimistic calculation of minimum size required

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:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:47:55 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: fix overly-pessimistic calculation of minimum
 size required

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:34:54AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > I'm going to have to self-NACK this.  This patch causes the resize2fs
> > regression tests to fail.  (In fact, Dmitry's original patch also
> > causes the resize2fs regression tests to fail.)
>
> Agree, regressions are not acceptable. Can you please spacify
> which tests are failed. As far as i know xfstetsts has no tests
> for resize2fs.

It was 2 of the tests from e2fsprogs's "make check", where off-one
resize2fs regression tests belong.  The xfstests suite is a good place
to test on-line resize functionality, where the bulk of the code that
has to function correctly is in the kernel,, but for testing
functionality which is specific to e2fsprogs, it's better to test it
within the context of e2fsprogs's regression tests.

Anyway, the patch set I sent out fixes up the problem.

	    	      	     	       	  - 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