[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871uklp5j7.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:55:56 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ravishankar N <cyberax82@...il.com>,
Amit Sahrawat <amit.sahrawat83@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Support fallocate on fat.
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:
>>> + /*
>>> + * calculate i_blocks and mmu_private from the actual number of
>>> + * allocated clusters instead of doing it from file size.This ensures
>>> + * that the preallocated disk space using FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is
>>> + * persistent across remounts and writes go into the allocated
>>> clusters.
>>> + */
>>> + fat_calc_dir_size(inode);
>>
>> Looks like the wrong. If you didn't initialize preallocated space, the
>> data never be exposed to userland. It is security bug.
> As explained above, if we do append write instead of seeking into a
> random offset, there is no security risk.
So it means? - if we didn't, there is.
> The main disadvantage with initializing the preallocated space (as is
> done in case of without FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE ) is it takes long time
> for bigger allocation sizes. It took ~70 seconds to preallocate 2GB on
> our target if FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is not set.
It doesn't become the reason to expose uninitialized data.
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists