linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:08:04 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Eryu Guan <eguan@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     fstests <fstests@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, tytso@....edu,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, chenlong <chenlongcl.chen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ext4/054: Should we remove auto and quick group?

On 22/01/25 03:43PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:32:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > Hello Zhang/Ted,
> >
> > Looks like the issue fixed by patches at [1], were observed with fault injection
> > testing and with errors=continue mount option. But were not cc'd to stable.
> >
> > Do you think those should be cc'd to stable tree?
> >
> > Meanwhile, I was thinking we should anyway remove auto and quick group from this
> > test as it could trigger a bug on in older kernel targets. Thoughts?
>
> IMO, ext4/054 is a targeted regression test and should be in auto group,
> which ensures the bug doesn't get re-introduced in future.

Yes, I agree with it.

>
> I think you could just skip this test to fit your kernel version, e.g.
>
> echo ext4/054 > ext4.exclude
> ./check -X ext4.exclude

Sure, thanks Eryu.

-ritesh