linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ext4: resize fs after resize

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: <YtqPXcFbbrFBr1om@mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 07:51:57 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Sun Ke <sunke32@...wei.com>
Cc:     Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>, fstests@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ext4: resize fs after resize_inode without e2fsck

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 04:16:26PM +0800, Sun Ke wrote:
> 
> 1. The test run fsck automatically, and complain inconsistent，I think it
> need not run fsck.

The check script always run fscks after the test.  In order to
suppress the fsck complaint, we'll need to add this after the
resize2fs invocation:

_scratch_unmount
$DEBUGFS_PROG -w -R "set_super_value s_reserved_gdt_blocks 0" $SCRATCH_DEV \
        >>$seqres.full 2>&1

This resets the s_reserved_gdt_blocks field back to zero, so the fsck
doesn't fail.  Which is fine, because the point of the test is to see
whether the kernel dereferences a NULL pointer or not.

> 2. It warn missing kernel fix, but the commit had merged.

The way _fixed_by_kernel_commit works is if the test fails (for any
reason), it prints that you MAY be missing the bugfix commit:

> HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fix:
>       b55c3cd102a6 ext4: add reserved GDT blocks check

		     	       		- Ted