linux-ext4 - Re: remove _supported

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: <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.