| 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: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:46:20 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add regression tests for ^extents punch hole On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > Linux commit 6f30b7e37a82 (ext4: fix indirect punch hole corruption) > fixes several bugs in the FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE implementation for an > ext4 filesystem with indirect blocks. > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> > --- > tests/ext4/005 | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/ext4/005.out | 29 ++++++++++++++ > tests/ext4/group | 1 + > 3 files changed, 145 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tests/ext4/005 > create mode 100644 tests/ext4/005.out What's ext4 specific about this test apart from the mkfs parameter? Shouldn't it be generic and so test all the filesystems behave the same? i.e. when someone then runs # MKFS_OPTIONS="-b size=1k -O ^extents" ./check -g auto That will exercise this specific regression fix, not to mention give much, much better test coverage of that configuration than just making a single test use that config... 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