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 11:59:46 -0500
From:   Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>
To:     Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@...il.com>
Cc:     "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 01/11/17 11:52, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 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.

That is my experience as well - some of them are affected by the kernel
version too. We probably need to look into making them more reliable.

I am also not sure how reliable the DDF tests are on systems without DDF
support.

Cheers,
Jes