linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ntfs filesystem remake

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260116093348.GA22781@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:33:48 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, hch@....de, tytso@....edu,
	willy@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org,
	josef@...icpanda.com, sandeen@...deen.net, rgoldwyn@...e.com,
	xiang@...nel.org, dsterba@...e.com, pali@...nel.org,
	ebiggers@...nel.org, neil@...wn.name, amir73il@...il.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, cheol.lee@....com, jay.sim@....com,
	gunho.lee@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ntfs filesystem remake

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 11:03:30PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>    a. Pass more xfstests tests:
>       ntfs passed 308 tests, significantly higher than ntfs3's 235.
>       ntfs passed tests are a complete superset of the tests passed
>       by ntfs3. ntfs implement fallocate, idmapped mount and permission,
>       etc, resulting in a significantly high number of xfstests passing
>       compared to ntfs3.

I'm not sure how many tests are actually run for the ntfs variants
because they lack features needed for many tests, but how many still
fail with this, because with these numbers I suspect there's quite
a few left. Do you have any good grasp why they are failing, i.e.
assumptions in xfsteasts, or missing feature checks?

Also adding this here instead of for the various patches adding the code:
there's a lot of problems with kerneldoc comments that make W=1 warns
about.  I think a lot of those are because comments are formatted as
kerneldoc when they should not.

Sparse also reports quite a lot of endianes/bitwise errors which need to
be addressed.