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

Message-ID: <20260119070254.GA1480@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:02:54 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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 Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:19:51PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > 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.

Not run is totally fine.  We have plenty of them even for native
file systems, and having even more for foreign file system support
is just fine.  What I meant to say is the number of failing tests
is the much more interesting metric, so maybe you can share that?