linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs/XXX: Add xfs/XXX

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:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 19:11:46 +0300
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/XXX: Add xfs/XXX

> >
> > But the kernel patch suggests that there is an intention to make
> > this behavior also applicable to ext4??
> > If that is the case I would recommend making this a generic tests
> > which requires filesystem support for -o dax=XXX
>
> I have a patch set for ext4 which is not quite passing this.  I'm not sure what
> is going on yet.
>
> Once that is working I was going to move this to generic.  (The documentation
> in the kernel patch set also reflects ext4 being different from xfs for the
> time being.)

IMO, if ext4 maintainer is on board with the plan to make this behavior of
ext4 then it is best to add this test as generic from the start.
Any other filesystems that may tag along later?

>
> This is mainly because I'm not sure if ext4 will make 5.8 or not.  Would you
> prefer making this generic now?  I assume there is some way to mark generic
> tests for a subset of FS's?  I have not figured that out yet.
>

There is a way, _supported_fs, see the tests/shared/*,
but the idea it to get rid of those in favor of feature tests such as
_require_scratch_dax

I believe it should be trivial to implement
_require_scratch_dax_never

Thanks,
Amir.