linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Fix tst_super_size after ext2_super

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:25:16 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix tst_super_size after ext2_super_block changes

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:09:26PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Commits "Reserve feature bit and SB field bit for filename encoding"
> > and "Add timestamp extension bits to superblock" change
> > ext2_super_block structure, but don't change tst_super_size test,
> > so "make check" fails with message:
> > 
> > error: s_reserved size 380 should be 392
> 
> How did these patches even land without "make check" being run once?
> Does this test failure not cause "make check" to fail?

My bad; I failed to run the make check before pushing it out.  I fixed
this before seeing Artem's patch, and the fix was what he pushed out.

     	    	   	   	      - Ted