linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 12/12] xfs/650: require a real SCRATCH

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: <20251211045400.GB26257@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 05:54:00 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Zorro Lang <zlang@...nel.org>,
	Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>,
	Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>, fstests@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] xfs/650:  require a real SCRATCH_RTDEV

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:50:43PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Aha, I missed that an earlier patch created it. :(
> 
> The one downside to not injecting a rt device here is that now the only
> testing for the actual bug is if you happen to have rt enabled.  That
> used to be a concern of mine, but maybe between you, me, Meta, and the
> kdevops folks there's enough now.

I guess that was the reason to create it, but on the other hand injecting
new devices is a mess.  One option would be to totally inject the devices,
but that requires a lot of boilerplate as done in the labelling test.

So I think the concept of "you need a RT device to test RT specific
code" should be ok, even if your concern is real.