linux-kernel - Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under Linux

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:52:41 -0800
From:   Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To:     Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@...il.com>
Cc:     Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
        "linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Brown, Neil" <neilb@...e.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 4.0 - A tool for managing md Soft RAID under
 Linux

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49:04AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > I am pleased to announce the availability of
> >     mdadm version 4.0
> > 
> > It is available at the usual places:
> >     http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
> > and via git at
> >     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git
> >     http://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/mdadm/
> > 
> > The update in major version number primarily indicates this is a
> > release by it's new maintainer. In addition it contains a large number
> > of fixes in particular for IMSM RAID and clustered RAID support.  In
> > addition this release includes support for IMSM 4k sector drives,
> > failfast and better documentation for journaled RAID.
> 
> Thank you for the new release.  Unfortunately I get 9 failures running the
> test suite:
> 
> tests/00raid1...          FAILED
> tests/07autoassemble...   FAILED
> tests/07changelevels...   FAILED
> tests/07revert-grow...    FAILED
> tests/07revert-inplace... FAILED
> tests/07testreshape5...   FAILED
> tests/10ddf-fail-twice... FAILED
> tests/20raid5journal...   FAILED
> tests/10ddf-incremental-wrong-order...  FAILED

Yep, several tests usually fail. It appears some checks aren't always good.  At
least the 'check' function for reshape/resync isn't reliable in my test, I saw
07changelevelintr fails frequently.

Thanks,
Shaohua