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  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, 20 Jun 2019 19:29:03 +0800
From:   Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        "Lakshmipathi.G" <lakshmipathi.ganapathi@...labora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] shared/012: Add tests for filename casefolding
 feature

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 04:01:54PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:44:40PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 02:40:33PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > Test looks good to me, and test passes for me with v5.2-rc4 kernel and
> > latest e2fsprogs, thanks! Just that, I moved the test to generic, as we
> > have all the needed _require rules ready to _notrun on unsupported fs,
> > so it's ready to be generic. (Sorry I was not involved with the
> > ext4-shared-generic discussion in the first place)
> 
> Just to clear up my confusion, what's the distinction between shared
> and generic?  Is it that if there are explicit "only run this test on
> file systems xxx, yyy, and zzz declarations", then it should be
> shared, and otherwise it should be in generic?
> 
> 						- Ted

IMO, shared tests are generic tests that don't have proper _require
rules, so they're hard-coded with explicit "_supported_fs xxx yyy". With
proper _require rules, there should be no shared tests at all, and we'd
try avoid adding new shared tests if possible.

Thanks,
Eryu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists