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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 16:26:01 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Boyang Xue <bxue@...hat.com> Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: regression test for "tune2fs -l" after ext4 shutdown On Wed 18-08-21 21:20:44, Boyang Xue wrote: > > > + > > > +# real QA test starts here > > > +_supported_fs ext4 > > > > I'm wondering if this case can be a generic case, there's nothing > > ext4 specified operations, except this line: > > > > "$TUNE2FS_PROG -l $SCRATCH_DEV" > > > > Hmm... if we can change this line to something likes _get_fs_super(), > > it might help to make this test to be a generic test. > > I think this bug is heavily related to "tune2fs", ext4 only. So I > guess an ext4 only test is enough? FWIW I agree with Boyang here. For this test to make sense for any other filesystem other the filesystem would need to read fs metadata through buffer cache in _get_fs_super(). Furthermore it is somewhat ext2/3/4 specific (due to historical reasons) that reading superblock from the buffer cache of a mounted filesystem is expected to result in something sensible. Usually this is plain unsupported use... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists