linux-hardening - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.8

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: <c69a3103-ae4d-459a-b5f4-d3bbe2af6fb2@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:19:43 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>,
	Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs updates for 6.8

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 08:03:35AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:

> I also have to say, that for all the complaints there's just not any
> open source pull for test tools (there's no-one who's on a mission to
> make them better).  Demanding that someone else do it is proof of this
> (if you cared enough you'd do it yourself).  That's why all our testing
> infrastructure is just some random set of scripts that mostly does what
> I want, because it's the last thing I need to prove the thing I
> actually care about works.

> Finally testing infrastructure is how OSDL (the precursor to the Linux
> foundation) got started and got its initial funding, so corporations
> have been putting money into it for decades with not much return (and
> pretty much nothing to show for a unified testing infrastructure ...
> ten points to the team who can actually name the test infrastructure
> OSDL produced) and have finally concluded it's not worth it, making it
> a 10x harder sell now.

I think that's a *bit* pessimistic, at least for some areas of the
kernel - there is commercial stuff going on with kernel testing with
varying degrees of community engagement (eg, off the top of my head
Baylibre, Collabora and Linaro all have offerings of various kinds that
I'm aware of), and some of that does turn into investments in reusable
things rather than proprietary stuff.  I know that I look at the
kernelci.org results for my trees, and that I've fixed issues I saw
purely in there.  kselftest is noticably getting much better over time,
and LTP is quite active too.  The stuff I'm aware of is more focused
around the embedded space than the enterprise/server space but it does
exist.  That's not to say that this is all well resourced and there's no
problem (far from it), but it really doesn't feel like a complete dead
loss either.

Some of the issues come from the different questions that people are
trying to answer with testing, or the very different needs of the
tests that people want to run - for example one of the reasons
filesystems aren't particularly well covered for the embedded cases is
that if your local storage is SD or worse eMMC then heavy I/O suddenly
looks a lot more demanding and media durability a real consideration.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)