[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161121231924.GG30672@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:19:24 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix reading new encrypted symlinks on no-journal
filesystems
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:52:22PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> > Yes, this would be a much nicer way to detect fast symlinks.
> >
> > The only thing I'd be concerned about is the possibility of pre-existing
> > "slow" symlinks that actually have targets short enough to be "fast"
> > symlinks, perhaps in filesystems created by old drivers or by external
> > tools. If such links happened to work before, then a change to check
> > i_size would break them.
> >
> > This may not be an issue in practice. I checked some old ext4 versions,
> > ext2 from Linux 0.99.7, e2fsprogs, Android's ext4_utils, and FreeBSD's
> > ext2 driver.
> > They all create "fast" symlinks if the length of the symlink target length
> > excluding the terminating null (i_size) is < 60.
>
> I did a similar analysis with similar results.
>
Ted, what would you say about Andreas' suggestion to use i_size to distinguish
fast symlinks from slow symlinks?
It looks like this was discussed some years ago but the discussion died out and
no change was made: see https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg05693.html
Given the investigation I did it seems it would very likely be safe, but we can
never be 100% sure it won't break some obscure tool or (version of a tool) to
create symlinks on ext2/ext3/ext4 filesystems we don't know about.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists