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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20241210160827.GA26559@lst.de> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:08:27 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Zorro Lang <zlang@...nel.org>, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: remove _supported_fs On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 08:00:33AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Hmm, instead of doing this (would require hard-coding support for ext2 > and ext3 file systems needing to use ext-common), why not just have > special-case code which causes ext2 and ext3 file systems to include > the ext4 group, and then we'll have _exclude_fs declaractions as > needed for ext2 and ext3? That's what the current tree does and what I want to get away from. I think the diffstat alone makes it pretty clear that moving away form that is a benefit, and it's also a lot easier to understand than that ext2 and ext3 magically run ext4 tests. > After all, ext3 has been removed except for the very oldest LTS > kernels (and I dount anyone is actually testing ext3 using xfstests > these days), The tests also cover using ext4 as the ext3 driver. > So it might not be worth it to move a bunch of tests and creating a > new (somewhat ugly) group, ext4-common, IMO. І'll let Jan speak up, but the only thing cleaner would be to drop the ext2/3 coverage, but І don't think the extra group is too bad, and certainly much better than what we currently have.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists