linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] xfstests: fsx: add support for cluster size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:22:49 +0800
From:   JeffleXu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] xfstests: fsx: add support for cluster size


On 4/28/20 1:29 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 05:33:49PM +0800, Jeffle Xu wrote:
>> The offset and size should be aligned with cluster size when inserting
>> or collapsing range on ext4 with 'bigalloc' feature enabled. Currently
>> I can find only ext4 with this limitation.
> ocfs2 also has this magic, um, ability.
>
> As does xfs under certain circumstance (realtime volumes).
>
>> Since fsx should have no assumption of the underlying filesystem, and
>> thus add the '-u cluster_size' option. Tests can set this option when
>> the underlying filesystem is ext4 with bigalloc enabled.
> Do copyrange, clonerange, or deduperange have this problem? ;)


clonerange and deduperange are not supported in ext4, while copyrange
  and zerorange work as the range has no need to be aligned with cluster size
in these two situations.