linux-kernel - Re: Issues with FIEMAP, xfstests, Samba, ksmbd and CIFS

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, 06 Dec 2023 12:38:29 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     fstests@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issues with FIEMAP, xfstests, Samba, ksmbd and CIFS

David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> So:
> 
>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE rather than
>    PUNCH_HOLE?
> 
>  - Should Samba and ksmbd be using FIEMAP rather than SEEK_DATA/HOLE?

 - Should Samba and ksmbd report 'unwritten' extents as being allocated?

>  - Should xfstests be less exacting in its FIEMAP analysis - or should this be
>    skipped for cifs?  I don't want to skip generic/009 as it checks some
>    corner cases that need testing, but it may not be possible to make the
>    exact extent matching work.