linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fat: Relax checks for sector size and media type

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]

Message-ID: <87zhwzro1o.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Date:   Mon, 03 Sep 2018 17:19:15 +0900
From:   OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Relax checks for sector size and media type

Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> writes:

>> That source seems to check power_of_2(size) and 128 <= size <=
>> 4096. Rather why do you want to support larger than 4096? Or I'm missing
>> something?
>
> I looked into (Linux) mkfs.fat and it supports formatting disk also with
> sector size > 4096. Therefore I thought it may be good idea for ability
> to mount and use it (on Linux).
>
> I could check what other operating system would do with FAT sector size
> larger then 4096.

If there is real user to use that, I'm ok though (of course, need
serious tests). However, FAT would be for exchange data with other
devices, and there is "cluster per sector", and spec recommends sector
size == device sector size. So I suspect this format is not useful.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>