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  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:   Thu, 16 May 2019 18:18:02 +0100
From:   Filipe Manana <>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <>
Cc:     fstests <>,
        linux-btrfs <>,
        linux-ext4 <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Filipe Manana <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fstests: generic, fsync fuzz tester with fsstress

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:59 PM Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >
> > Haven't tried ext4 with 1 process only (instead of 4), but I can try
> > to see if it happens without concurrency as well.
> How many CPU's and how much memory were you using?  And I assume this
> was using KVM/QEMU?  How was it configured?

Yep, kvm and qemu (3.0.0). The qemu config:

TEST_DEV is the drive with ID "drive1" and SCRATCH_DEV is the drive
with ID "drive2".

The host has:

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz
64Gb of ram
crappy seagate hdd:

Device Model:     ST3000DM008-2DM166
Serial Number:    Z5053T2R
LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 0a46f7ecb
Firmware Version: CC26
User Capacity:    3,000,592,982,016 bytes [3,00 TB]
Sector Sizes:     512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical
Rotation Rate:    7200 rpm
Form Factor:      3.5 inches
Device is:        Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall]
ATA Version is:   ACS-2, ACS-3 T13/2161-D revision 3b
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.1, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)

It hosts 3 qemu instances, all with the same configuration.

I left the test running earlier today for about 1 hour on ext4 with
only 1 fsstress process. Didn't manage to reproduce.
With 4 or more processes, those journal checksum failures happen sporadically.
I can leave it running with 1 process during this evening and see what
we get here, if it happens with 1 process, it should be trivial to
reproduce anywhere.

> Thanks,
>                                         - Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists