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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAKYAXd9CXj5hZ2zoiyEgrBWA6NB1u2VrBEcOGCwCPCSZODzp6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 14:19:51 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, 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 Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 6:34 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> 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?
Regarding the xfstests results, many of the 'Not Run' cases are due to
fundamental differences in the NTFS architecture. For instance, NTFS
does not support certain advanced features like reflink, which causes
many tests to be skipped. Also, ntfs does not yet support journaling,
leading to failures in tests that assume journal-based consistency.
I am currently categorizing these failures to distinguish between
NTFS-inherent limitations and areas for future improvement. I will
provide a detailed breakdown and analysis of these test results in the
cover letter on next version.
>
> 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.
Okay. I will fix it.
>
> Sparse also reports quite a lot of endianes/bitwise errors which need to
> be addressed.
Okay, I will fix it.

Thank you!
>