linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5] ext4/056: add a check to make sure ext4 uuid ioctls get/set during fsstress.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:16:37 -0700
From:   Jeremy Bongio <bongiojp@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        fstests@...r.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
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 8:30 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> https://github.com/tytso/xfstests/commit/330bf72dc67dd39e0fd413ecea78ab18b5405fb9

Great. Thank you everyone! I'll use your merged version, fix the wait
line, and add Reviewed-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>.

>
>                                                         - Ted