linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs

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: <Z7O4MZ0xOpO_GTKE@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:29:05 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ritesh.list@...il.com,
	ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, djwong@...nel.org, zlang@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] xfs: Add a testcase to check remount with noattr2
 on a v5 xfs

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18:48AM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> On 2/14/25 03:19, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > > On 2/13/25 03:17, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:39:58PM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> > Ok, so CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=n is the correct behaviour (known mount
> > option, invalid configuration being asked for), and it is the
> > CONFIG_XFS_SUPPORT_V4=y behaviour that is broken.
> 
> Okay, so do you find this testcase (patch 3/3 xfs: Add a testcase to check
> remount with noattr2 on a v5 xfs) useful,

Not at this point in time, because xfs/189 is supposed to exercise
attr2/noattr2 mount/remount behaviour and take into account all the
weirdness of the historic mount behaviour.

Obviously, it is not detecting that this noattr2 remount behaviour
was broken, so that test needs fixing/additions.  Indeed, it's
probably important to understand why xfs/189 isn't detecting this
failure before going any further, right?

IMO, it is better to fix existing tests that exercise the behaviour
in question than it is to add a new test that covers just what the
old test missed.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com