linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

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:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:03:51 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Leonidas P. Papadakos" <papadakospan@...il.com>,
        Konstantin Komarov <almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com>,
        zajec5@...il.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vboxsf fixes for 5.14-1

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 08:49:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:10:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The user-space FUSE thing does indeed work reasonably well.
> > 
> > It performs horribly badly if you care about things like that, though.
> > 
> > In fact, your own numbers kind of show that:
> > 
> >   ntfs/default: 670 tests, 55 failures, 211 skipped, 34783 seconds
> >   ntfs3/default: 664 tests, 67 failures, 206 skipped, 8106 seconds
> > 
> > and that's kind of the point of ntfs3.
> 
> Sure, although if you run fstress in parallel ntfs3 will lock up, the
> system hard, and it has at least one lockdep deadlock complaints.
> It's not up to me, but personally, I'd feel better if *someone* at
> Paragon Software responded to Darrrick and my queries about their
> quality assurance, and/or made commitments that they would at least
> *try* to fix the problems that about 5 minutes of testing using
> fstests turned up trivially.

<cough> Yes, my aim was to gauge their interest in actively QAing the
driver's current problems so that it doesn't become one of the shabby
Linux filesystem drivers, like <cough>ntfs.

Note I didn't even ask for a particular percentage of passing tests,
because I already know that non-Unix filesystems fail the tests that
look for the more Unix-specific behaviors.

I really only wanted them to tell /us/ what the baseline is.  IMHO the
silence from them is a lot more telling.  Both generic/013 and
generic/475 are basic "try to create files and read and write data to
them" exercisers; failing those is a red flag.

--D

> I can even give them patches and configsto make it trivially easy for
> them to run fstests using KVM or GCE....
> 
> 				- Ted