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: <CAKYAXd_NzRz3n3yBo_6OSE4M9mT2M+y9Tspb5t1KJSpjBniJ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:26:48 +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 Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 4:03 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes, I will share that.
Thanks!
>