From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: Random corruption test for e2fsck Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:42:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4693A8DA.30606@redhat.com> References: <1184072860.4440.39.camel@garfield.linsyssoft.com> <20070710145855.GB27033@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kalpak Shah , linux-ext4 To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55228 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752454AbXGJPqJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:46:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070710145855.GB27033@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Theodore Tso wrote: >> 5) If the test went by without any errors the test image is deleted and >> in case of any errors the user is notified that the log of this test run >> should be mailed to linux-ext4@ and the image should be preserved. > > I certainly like the general concept!! > > I wonder if the code to create a random filesystem and corrupting it > should be kept as separate shell script, since it can be reused in > another of interesting ways. One thought would be to write a test > script that mounts corrupted filesystems using UML and then does some > exercises on it (tar cvf on the filesyste, random renames on the > filesystem, rm -rf of all of the contents of the filesystems), to see > whether we can provoke a kernel oops. FWIW, that's what fsfuzzer does, in an fs-agnostic way. -Eric