linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number when truncating occurs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:51:12 +0300
From:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
Cc:	Huang Shijie <shijie8@...il.com>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: cmdlinepart: fix the wrong partitions number
 when truncating occurs

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:16:05 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 09:06 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > root	100m@0
> > kernel	100m@...m
> > rootfs	800m@...m (truncated)
> > user	0@1g (truncated)
> > rest	0@1g
> 
> Who would benefit from having those 2 0-sized partitions and how? How
> many users/scripts would be confused by this (these 2 ghost partitions
> would be visible in /proc/mtd and sysfs)? How much RAM would we spend
> for creating sysfs files and directories for these ghost partitions
> (note, one sysfs file costs a couple KiB I thing, because 'sizeof
> (struct inode)').
> 
> While you suggestion is clever, do we really benefit from this?

Artem, please note this is just a side effect of what I've suggested
(that its, continue parsing after first truncated partition), not a real
use case I'd expect and intentionally wish to support.

I am used to specify partitions explicitly using size@...set (specifying
offset for all parts, even if sometimes adjacent), and sometimes in an
unsorted fashion.
I never defined some partition that got truncated, so the whole
discussion is theoretical to _my_ usecase.

The only benefit of continuing to parse, is that if there _are_ later
partitions which are defined _explicitly_ with an offset, whose location
is _before_ the truncated partition, these would still be parsed and
registered.

Not so important, and would rarely happen, but simplistic and naive.

And reagrding 0 sized partitions, we can always skip these.

Regards,
Shmulik
--
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/