linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout beyond EOF

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: <20181130215005.GP19305@dastard>
Date:   Sat, 1 Dec 2018 08:50:05 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 25/35] iomap: sub-block dio needs to zeroout
 beyond EOF

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:14:41AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:40:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>I stopped my tests at 5 billion ops yesterday (i.e. 20 billion ops
> >>aggregate) to focus on testing the copy_file_range() changes, but
> >>Darrick's tests are still ongoing and have passed 40 billion ops in
> >>aggregate over the past few days.
> >>
> >>The reason we are running these so long is that we've seen fsx data
> >>corruption failures after 12+ hours of runtime and hundreds of
> >>millions of ops. Hence the testing for backported fixes will need to
> >>replicate these test runs across multiple configurations for
> >>multiple days before we have any confidence that we've actually
> >>fixed the data corruptions and not introduced any new ones.
> >>
> >>If you pull only a small subset of the fixes, the fsx will still
> >>fail and we have no real way of actually verifying that there have
> >>been no regression introduced by the backport.  IOWs, there's a
> >>/massive/ amount of QA needed for ensuring that these backports work
> >>correctly.
> >>
> >>Right now the XFS developers don't have the time or resources
> >>available to validate stable backports are correct and regression
> >>fre because we are focussed on ensuring the upstream fixes we've
> >>already made (and are still writing) are solid and reliable.
> >
> >Ok, that's fine, so users of XFS should wait until the 4.20 release
> >before relying on it?  :)
> 
> It's getting to the point that with the amount of known issues with XFS
> on LTS kernels it makes sense to mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN.

Really? Where are the bug reports?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com