linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 0/5] Ext4: Add support for blocksize < pagesize for dioread

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:13:31 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     jack@...e.cz, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, mbobrowski@...browski.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Ext4: Add support for blocksize < pagesize for
 dioread_nolock



On 11/4/19 12:46 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 12:49:24PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>>
>> So it looks like these failed tests does not seem to be because of this
>> patch series. But these are broken in general for at least 1K blocksize.
> 
> Agreed, I failed to add them to the exclude list for diread_nolock_1k.
> Thanks for pointing that out!
> 
> After looking through these patches, it looks good.  So, I've landed
> this series on the ext4 git tree.
> 
> There are some potential conflicts with Matthew's DIO using imap patch
> set.  I tried resolving them in the obvious way (see the tt/mb-dio
> branch[1] on ext4.git), and unfortunately, there is a flaky test
> failure with generic/270 --- 2 times out 30 runs of generic/270, the
> file system is left inconsistent, with problems found in the block
> allocation bitmap.
> 
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/log/?h=tt/mb-dio
> 
> I've verified that generic/270 isn't a problem on -rc3, and it's not a
> problem with just your patch series.  So, it's almost certain it's
> because I screwed up the merge.  I applied each of Matthew's patch one
> at a time, and conflict was in changes in ext4_end_io_dio, which is
> dropped in Matthew's patch.  It wasn't obvious though where the
> dioread-nolock-1k change should be applied in Matthew's patch series.
> Could you take a look?  Thanks!!

Sure. Let me take a look at this and get back.
Meanwhile, if possible could you please help with what xfstest config is
failing and the failure details, if possible. Just curious to know
about it.

-ritesh