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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:28:12 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        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)

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:55:47AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 11:23:39PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I do run xfstests.  But "runs in KVM without visible slowdowns" != "won't
> cause them on 48-core bare metal".  And this area (especially when it
> comes to RCU mode) can be, er, interesting in that respect.
> 
> FWIW, I'm putting together some litmus tests for pathwalk semantics -
> one of the things I'd like to discuss at LSF; quite a few codepaths
> are simply not touched by anything in xfstests.

Might be more appropriate for LTP than xfstests?  will-it-scale might be
the right place for performance benchmarks.