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, 20 Jul 2022 11:30:02 -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 11:06:36PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote:
> > 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
> Sure, I mean:
>   kill -9 $fsstress_pid 2>/dev/null
>   wait
> Not remove the "kill" line :)

Ah yes, sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

> > 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
> > out.
> Thanks for pointing out that, yes, better to rebase to latest fstests
> for-next branch.

Jeremy, for your convenience, my version of the change which is
rebased on for-next, fixes the merge conflicts and uses ext4/057
instead of ext4/056 can be found here:

							- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists