linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2] test-appliance: force 4 KB block size for bigalloc, bigalloc

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]

Message-ID: <Y4UAY2dU799AGm1V@mit.edu>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:39:31 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] test-appliance: force 4 KB block size for bigalloc,
 bigalloc_inline

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
> The cfg file for the bigalloc test configuration does not explicitly
> define the file system block size as is done for the 4k configuration,
> although the intent is to test a file system with 4 KB blocks and 64 KB
> clusters.  At least one test, shared/298, runs with a block size of
> 1 KB instead under bigalloc because it creates a file system image less
> than 512 MB in size, a result of the mke2fs.conf block size rule
> for small files.
> 
> shared/298 currently fails when run under bigalloc with 1 KB blocks.
> When the block size is set to 4 KB for the test, it passes.
> 
> Explicitly defining the bigalloc block size will help avoid similar
> surprises in current or future tests written to use small test files.
> Make the same change to the bigalloc_inline config file while we're
> at it.
> 
> v2:  Modify the names of the bigalloc test configurations using 4 KB
> block sizes to explicitly reflect the block size.  Change the
> documentation and supporting files to reflect this.  Bring the
> bigalloc_4k_inline.exclude file up to date (and propagate a change to
> the other .exclude files).  Add a new test configuration for bigalloc
> with 64k blocks, but don't add this configuration to the default list
> of all tests to be run for now.
> 
> The bigalloc_64k and huge_bigalloc_4k configurations are untested.  The
> huge_bigalloc_4k.exclude file will likely need further work if used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@...il.com>

Thanks, applied.

						- Ted