linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork during ifree

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:   Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:17:13 -0400
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Tso Ted <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: always free inline data before resetting inode fork
 during ifree

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:12:23PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:05:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:30:06PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is actually something I want maintainers to dictate. What sort of
> > > testing would make the XFS folks happy here? Right now I'm doing
> > > "./check 'xfs/*'" with xfstests. Is it sufficient? Anything else you'd like to see?
> > 
> > ... and you're doing it wrong. This is precisely why being able
> > to discover /exactly/ what you are testing and being able to browse
> > the test results so we can find out if tests passed when a user
> > reports a bug on a stable kernel.
> > 
> > The way you are running fstests skips more than half the test suite
> > It also runs tests that are considered dangerous because they are
> > likely to cause the test run to fail in some way (i.e. trigger an
> > oops, hang the machine, leave a filesystem in an unmountable state,
> > etc) and hence not complete a full pass.
> > 
> > "./check -g auto" runs the full "expected to pass" regression test
> > suite for all configured test configurations. (i.e. all config
> > sections listed in the configs/<host>.config file)
> 
> ie, it would be safer to expect that an algorithmic auto-selection process for
> fixes for stable kernels should have direct input and involvement from
> subsystems for run-time testing and simply guessing or assuming won't suffice.
> 
> The days of just compile testing should be way over by now, and we should
> expect no less for stable kernels, *specially* if we start involving
> automation.
> 
> Would a way to *start* to address this long term for XFS or other filesystems
> for auto-selection long-term be a topic worth covering / addressing at LSF/MM?
> 

It would be cool to tie tests to commit numbers for things where we're making
sure a oops/hang doesn't happen again, but honestly I'm not sure it's worth the
effort.  Maybe this is my upstream bias showing, but I only ever run xfstests
against something relatively close to linus, so I'm not super worried about
./check -g auto eating my box.  I expect that if I run auto that everything
minus the few flakey tests are going to pass.

Also TIL about configs/<host>.config, that's pretty fucking cool.  Thanks,

Josef