linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] shared: test mount needs_recovery extN partition with noload option

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151224081010.GI2535@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:10:10 +0800
From:	Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>
To:	Xiong Zhou <xzhou@...hat.com>
Cc:	fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	dmonakhov@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shared: test mount needs_recovery extN partition with
 noload option

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote:
> Once upon a time, ext4 encounter NULL pointer dereference under this
> situaiton due to jump to a wrong label. Part of this commit fixed
> this Oops:
> 
> 744692d ext4: use ext4_get_block_write in buffer write
> 
> We can also run this test on ext2/3. Note that fsck will fail on
> ext2 due to:
>  "Superblock needs_recovery flag is set, but no journal is present"

I don't think fsck is needed in this test, superblock is modified on
purpose and ext2 always fails the check. So changing _require_scratch to
_require_scratch_nocheck would be good.

Otherwise looks good to me.

Thanks,
Eryu
--
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