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: <pzgf2abc2piophrwt3m3elaeb3vrrgrvxyq437ytpmah6rnxf5@m4gfyw4bcmxo>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 13:27:08 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To:     Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>
Cc:     "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v1] nvme/040: Free loop back resources

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:13:18AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2023 / 16:29, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The tests does not cleanup all resources after it has finished. This
> > leads to rm not being able to remove the TMPDIR cleanly:
> > 
> >   + rm -rf blktests/results/tmpdir.nvme.040.m2J
> >   rm: cannot remove 'blktests/results/tmpdir.nvme.040.m2J': Directory not empty
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
> 
> Hi Daniel, thanks for the patch. It looks good to me. Now the test case leaves a
> loop device. This patch avoids it. Good.
> 
> Question, I do not observe the rm command failure in my test environments. Do
> you have insight why you were able to find the failure?

I am running the tests inside a VM and I am sharing a part of my host filesystem
via NFS which contain the blktests. If I understood it correctly, the NFS server
is behaving slightly differently here. I can't observe it either with xfs or
btrfs.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ