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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 05:14:41 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, 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 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.

>I understand your reluctance to want to backport anything, but it really
>feels like you are not even allowing for fixes that are "obviously
>right" to be backported either, even after they pass testing.  Which
>isn't ok for your users.

Do the XFS maintainers expect users to always use the latest upstream
kernel?

--
Thanks,
Sasha