linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] check: Add -q <n> option to support unconditional looping.

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: <87ikn523r5.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:36:06 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@...il.com>
Cc: fstests@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, djwong@...nel.org, zlang@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] check: Add -q <n> option to support unconditional looping.

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 08:58:19AM +0000, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
>> This patch adds -q <n> option through which one can run a given test <n>
>> times unconditionally. It also prints pass/fail metrics at the end.
>> 
>> The advantage of this over -L <n> and -i/-I <n> is that:
>>     a. -L <n> will not re-run a flakey test if the test passes for the first time.
>>     b. -I/-i <n> sets up devices during each iteration and hence slower.
>> Note -q <n> will override -L <n>.

First things first -q is similar to -L except that it loops
unconditionaly even when there is no failure. (Bad choice of -q naming,
since -l was in use for something else)

>
> I'm wondering if we need to keep the current behavior of -I/-i.  The
> primary difference between them and how your proposed -q works is that
> instead of iterating over the section, your proposed option iterates
> over each test.  So for example, if a section contains generic/001 and
> generic/002, iterating using -i 3 will do this:
>
> generic/001
> generic/002
> generic/001
> generic/002
> generic/001
> generic/002
>
> While generic -q 3 would do this instead:
>
> generic/001
> generic/001
> generic/001
> generic/002
> generic/002
> generic/002
>

Yes, that's correct. Since it iterates at the top level, it also sources
some common configs, re-formats and does a mount re-cycle of the scratch
device during each iteration.

This mostly should not matter, since each test can anyways re-format the
scratch device when it needs to mount/test it.

>
> At least for all of the use cases that I can think of where I might
> use -i 3, -q 3 is strictly better.  So instead of adding more options
> which change how we might do iterations, could we perhaps just replace
> -i with your new -q?  And change -I so that it also works like -q,
> except if any test fails, that we stop?

I agree that in this case it make more sense to replace the underlying
functionality of -i/-I with what -q <n> is doing here. But maybe others
can comment, if anyone has any objection on this.

-ritesh