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  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:   Wed, 31 May 2017 14:37:13 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <>
To:     Jeff Layton <>
Cc:     Al Viro <>, Jan Kara <>,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/17] fs: introduce new writeback error reporting
 and convert ext2 and ext4 to use it

On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:31:49 -0400 Jeff Layton <> wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 13:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:45:23 -0400 Jeff Layton <> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is v5 of the patchset to improve how we're tracking and reporting
> > > errors that occur during pagecache writeback.
> > 
> > I'm curious to know how you've been testing this?
> >  Is that testing
> > strong enough for us to be confident that all nature of I/O errors
> > will be reported to userspace?
> > 
> That's a tall order. This is a difficult thing to test as these sorts of
> errors are pretty rare by nature.
> I have an xfstest that I posted just after this set that demonstrates
> that it works correctly, at least on ext2/3/4 when run by the ext4
> driver (ext2 legacy driver reports too many errors currently). I had
> btrfs and xfs working on that test too in an earlier incarnation of this
> set, so I think we can fix this in them as well without too much
> difficulty.
> I'm happy to run other tests if someone wants to suggest them.
> Now, all that said, I don't think this will make things any worse than
> they are today as far as reporting errors properly to userland goes.
> It's rather easy for an incidental synchronous writeback request from an
> internal caller to clear the AS_* flags today. This will at least ensure
> that we're reporting errors since a well-defined point in time when you
> call fsync.

Were you using error injection of some form?  If so, how was that all
set up?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists