linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio

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: <1b12c0d9-b564-4e57-b1a5-359e2e538e9c@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 15:50:10 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>,
        fstests@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, djwong@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] common/rc: Add _require_fio_version helper

On 22/08/2025 09:02, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> The main motivation of adding this function on top of _require_fio is
> that there has been a case in fio where atomic= option was added but
> later it was changed to noop since kernel didn't yet have support for
> atomic writes. It was then again utilized to do atomic writes in a later
> version, once kernel got the support. Due to this there is a point in
> fio where _require_fio w/ atomic=1 will succeed even though it would
> not be doing atomic writes.
> 
> Hence, add an explicit helper to ensure tests to require specific
> versions of fio to work past such issues.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   common/rc | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index 35a1c835..f45b9a38 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -5997,6 +5997,38 @@ _max() {
>   	echo $ret
>   }
>   
> +# Check the required fio version. Examples:
> +#   _require_fio_version 3.38 (matches 3.38 only)
> +#   _require_fio_version 3.38+ (matches 3.38 and above)
> +#   _require_fio_version 3.38- (matches 3.38 and below)

This requires the user to know the version which corresponds to the 
feature. Is that how things are done for other such utilities and their 
versions vs features?

I was going to suggest exporting something like 
_require_fio_atomic_writes(), and _require_fio_atomic_writes() calls 
_require_fio_version() to check the version.

Thanks,
John