linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)

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: <87wo80g0bo.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:23:39 -0600
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)

Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:48:31PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every
>> > codepath in pathname resolution.  Is there any way to sic the bots on
>> > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"?
>> 
>> Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the
>> kbuild bots.  Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots.
>> 
>> I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code.
>
> Build bots are generally nice, but in this case... pretty much all of
> the changes are in fs/namei.c, which is not all that sensitive to
> config/architecture/whatnot.  Sure, something like "is audit enabled?"
> may affect the build problems, but not much beyond that.
>
> What was that Intel-run(?) bot that posts "such-and-such metrics has
> 42% regression on such-and-such commit" from time to time?
> <checks>
> Subject: [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement
> seems to be the latest of that sort,
> From: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
>
> Not sure how much of pathwalk-heavy loads is covered by profiling
> bots of that sort, unfortunately... ;-/

Do the xfs-tests cover that sort of thing?
The emphasis is stress testing the filesystem not the VFS but there is a
lot of overlap between the two.

Eric