linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/9] ext4/003: Fix this test on 64K platform for dax config

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]

Message-ID: <20210708062445.xnoij6ya7huedqcv@riteshh-domain>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:54:45 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] ext4/003: Fix this test on 64K platform for dax
 config

On 21/06/30 12:27PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:58:05AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > mkfs.ext4 by default uses 4K blocksize which doesn't mount when testing
> > with dax config and the test fails. This patch fixes it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/ext4/003 | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/ext4/003 b/tests/ext4/003
> > index 00ea9150..1ddb3063 100755
> > --- a/tests/ext4/003
> > +++ b/tests/ext4/003
> > @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ _require_scratch_ext4_feature "bigalloc"
> >
> >  rm -f $seqres.full
> >
> > -$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
> > +BLOCK_SIZE=$(get_page_size)
> > +$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -b $BLOCK_SIZE -O bigalloc -C 65536  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \
> >  	>> $seqres.full 2>&1
> >  _scratch_mount
>
> Thanks for the patch!

Thanks for the review, sorry about the delay (- Last week was short a week for
me).

>
> If the block size is 64k, then the cluster_size == block_size at which
> point ext4/003 won't be able to test for the regression its designed
> to test.  So we probably need to scale the cluster size and file
> system size relative to the block size.

Yes, thanks for catching it. I think if make below change, i.e. scale cluster
size, we should be good. Since this will make blocks_per_group = 4096 and
clusters_per_group = 256. This is the condition, which I guess the original
kernel patch fixed it for. So, we need not increase the filesystem size.

$MKFS_EXT4_PROG -F -b $BLOCK_SIZE -O bigalloc -C $((BLOCK_SIZE * 16))  -g 256 $SCRATCH_DEV 512m \

-ritesh






>
> 					- Ted