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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140514165048.GA20454@boyd>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:50:49 -0500
From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
To: tytso@....edu
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
dchinner@...hat.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Separate mailing list for xfstests
On 2014-05-14 16:04:47, tytso@....edu wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >> linux-fsdevel might seem as a good candidate for it, but still I
> > >> think that it deserves a separate ML to point people to.
>
> I'm personally in favor of using linux-fsdevel since it might
> encourage more fs developers who aren't using xfstests yet to start
> using it.
>
> For example, we started investigating using xfstests to test unionfs,
> and pretty quickly found problems. (I suspect the same problem exists
> in AUFS, BTW, but I've been focusing on unionfs because it's simpler
> and less scary.) The patches to enable the use of xfstests to test
> unionfs are still pretty rough, but hopefully we'll get those sent to
> Dave once they are cleaned up a bit.
Oh, that sounds interesting. I haven't seen these patches, but I expect
they would be pretty easy for me to extend for testing eCryptfs. That
has been on my todo list for a long time but I haven't spent much time
working on eCryptfs lately.
BTW, you can use this email as a supporting data point for your first
paragraph. :)
Tyler
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists