On 5/29/14, 12:27 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:22:37AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> After considering how many resize2fs corruptions we've had, I decided to try to write a resize fuzzer which picks random parameters and sizes, and sees what happens with online & offline grow & offline shrink. When I get it cleaner, I'll send it out to play with. >> >> But it is indeed finding resize issues; for example, with e2fsprogs git master & v3.15-rc3, <snip> >> Sad face. :( > > D'oh! > > /me wonders, is offline grow any better? Yes, offline passed. > Also I "extended" fsfuzz to corrupt only metadata blocks and made the > kernel+e2fsck chew through all that crap. The kernel survived, but e2fsck > seemed to die either failing to allocate blocks to resurrect the journal (bad > bbitmap) or because of that thing where calling block_iterate on an inline data > file makes e2fsck abort. > > So, uh, ... long live the patchbomb? :( yeah. Maybe I (you?) should try my testcase w/ your latest patchbomb. ;) -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
