linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] generic/468: Add another falloc test entry

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:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:22:46 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] generic/468: Add another falloc test entry

On 22/04/05 06:00PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 04:36:03PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > > > +# blocksize and fact are used in the last case of the fsync/fdatasync test.
> > > > +# This is mainly trying to test recovery operation in case where the data
> > > > +# blocks written, exceeds the default flex group size (32768*4096*16) in ext4.
> > > > +blocks=32768
> > > > +blocksize=4096
> > >
> > > Block size can change based on mkfs parameters. You should extract
> > > this dynamically from the filesystem the test is being run on.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but we still have kept just 4096 because, anything bigger than that like
> > 65536 might require a bigger disk size itself to test. The overall size
> > requirement of the disk will then become ~36G (32768 * 65536 * 18)
> > Hence I went ahead with 4096 which is good enough for testing.
>
> What if the block size is *smaller*?  For example, I run an ext4/1k
> configuration (which is how I test block size > page size on x86 VM's :-).

For 1k bs, this test can still reproduce the problem. Because the given size
will easily overflow the required number of blocks in 1K case.

>
> > But sure, I will add a comment explaining why we have hardcoded it to 4096
> > so that others don't get confused. Larger than this size disk anyway doesn't get
> > tested much right?
>
> At $WORK we use a 100GB disk by default when running xfstests, and I
> wouldn't be surprised if theree are other folks who might use larger
> disk sizes.

Ohk, sure. Thanks for the info.

>
> Maybe test to see whether the scratch disk is too small for the given
> parameters and if so skip the test using _notrun?
>

Yes, I think I got the point. I will make the changes accordingly.

-ritesh