linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio

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: <aLsSRFPvye9jDmdd@li-dc0c254c-257c-11b2-a85c-98b6c1322444.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 22:09:32 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>, fstests@...r.kernel.org,
        Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, djwong@...nel.org,
        tytso@....edu, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio_version helper

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 05:14:47PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 05/09/2025 16:51, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > > This requires the user to know the version which corresponds to the feature.
> > > Is that how things are done for other such utilities and their versions vs
> > > features?
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > So there are not many such helpers but the 2 I could see were used this
> > way:
> > 
> > tests/btrfs/284:
> >     _require_btrfs_send_version 2
> > 
> > tests/nfs/001:
> >     _require_test_nfs_version 4
> > 
> > So I though of keeping it this way.
> 
> What about the example of _require_xfs_io_command param, which checks if
> $param is supported?
> 
> We could have _require_fio_option atomics, which checks if a specific
> version is available which supports atomic? Or a more straightforward would
> be _require_fio_with_atomics.

Hey John,

Sure Im okay with having a high level helper. I liked the name you
previously suggested:

  _require_fio_atomic_writes() {
    _require_fio_version 3.38+
  }

And the tests could use it as:

  _require_fio_atomic_writes()
  fio_config="abc.fio"
  _require_fio $fio_config

------------------------

OR would you prefer:

  _require_fio_atomic_writes() {
    _require_fio_version 3.38+
    _require_fio $fio_config
  }

And the tests could use it as:

  fio_config="abc.fio"
  _require_fio_atomic_writes $fio_config

------------------------

Let me know which one would you prefer.

Regards,
ojaswin

> 
> Cheers
>