From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Warning and BUG with btrfs and corrupted image Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:11:05 -0500 Message-ID: <1232457065.15042.2.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> References: <20090113142147.GE16333@alice> <1231857643.29164.28.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090113144307.GF16333@alice> <20090118174035.GG1944@ucw.cz> <20090120063150.GC5854@alice> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sesterhenn Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090120063150.GC5854@alice> List-ID: On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:31 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > Hi, > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz) wrote: > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in > > production' and should survive it... > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have > time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in > buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 > > If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list > or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know > squashfs is in the kernel now, that would be good to see as well. I didn't realize you were doing such extensive tests, thanks for doing them. -chris