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  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, 20 Jul 2022 07:42:25 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <>
To:     Zorro Lang <>
Cc:     Jeremy Bongio <>,,, "Darrick J . Wong" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ext4/056: add a check to make sure ext4 uuid ioctls
 get/set during fsstress.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 06:09:49PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 05:02:56PM -0700, Jeremy Bongio wrote:
> > +# Override the default cleanup function.
> > +_cleanup()
> > +{
> > +        cd /
> > +        rm -r -f $tmp.*
> > +        kill -9 $fsstress_pid 2>/dev/null;
> > +        wait $fsstress_pid > /dev/null 2>&1
> I think "wait" is enough. With this change, it's good to me.

The kill -9 is needed, because otherwise the test will run for a
**very** long time.  The reason for it is because of the -n 999999 in

> > +# Begin fsstress while modifying UUID
> > +fsstress_args=$(_scale_fsstress_args -d $SCRATCH_MNT -p 15 -n 999999)
> > +$FSSTRESS_PROG $fsstress_args > /dev/null 2>&1 &
> > +fsstress_pid=$!

We could adjust the number of loops to a more reasonable number, but
then test becomes less reliable, since depending on the storage device
(e.g., cheap USB thumb drive found in the checkout counter at a
convenience store, vs. a high-end NVMe SSD) and the overall speed of
the system, a different number of loops will be needed.

Given that we're *only* using the fsstress as an antogonist while we
are changing the UUID of the file system 20 times, killing the
fsstress once we're done with the UUID runs is sufficient, I would

Also, Jeremy, it looks like you haven't updated your xfstests-dev
repository in a few weeks.  Since you started this project, ext4/056
has been assigned, and there has been some new helper programs added
which caused patch conflicts in src/Makefile and in .gitignore.  They
were pretty trivial to fix up the patch conflicts (which I've done in
my xfstests-dev tree), but it's best practice to rebase on top of
origin/for-next and re-test just to make sure there haven't been some
major change in the fstests common scripts that might catch your test

Also, feel free to add my:

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <>


						- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists