linux-ext4 - Re: CrashMonkey: A Framework to Systematically Test File-System Crash Consistency

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]

Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhkT05yHfQz0csruH-mz_hTamMABh3eZaNmzjXX02J1=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:32:41 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.og, Ashlie Martinez <ashmrtn@...xas.edu>
Subject: Re: CrashMonkey: A Framework to Systematically Test File-System Crash Consistency

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Vijay Chidambaram <vvijay03@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Josef and Amir,
>
...
>
> @Amir: Given that Josef's code is already in the kernel, do you think
> changing CrashMonkey code would be useful? We are always happy to
> provide something for upstream, but we want to be sure how much work
> would be involved.
>

Simply put, people (myself included) are more likely to use CrashMonkey
if it uses upstream kernel and/or if it brings valuable functionality
to filesystem
testing, beyond what log-writes already does -
I am have not studies either tools yet to be able to determine if that
is the case.

Cheers,
Amir.