linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?

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: <20220125074325.GB12255@e18g06458.et15sqa>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:43:25 +0800
From:   Eryu Guan <eguan@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, tytso@....edu,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, chenlong <chenlongcl.chen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Zhang/Ted,
> 
> Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection
> testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
> 
> Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
> 
> Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this
> test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?

IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group,
which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.

I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.

echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
./check -X ext4.exclude

Thanks,
Eryu

> 
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210908120850.4012324-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com/
> 
> Ritesh Harjani (1):
>   ext4/054: Remove auto and quick group
> 
>  tests/ext4/054 | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --
> 2.31.1