linux-kernel - Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

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:   Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:44:24 +0100
From:   Stuart Swales <stuart.swales.croftnuisk@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux-arm@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: fs/adfs - keep or kill it?

On 04/04/2019 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently, a couple of issues have been identified in fs/adfs:
> 
> 1. Filename truncation may not work as it should, and Linus has
>    apparently expressed a desire to kill this off.
> 
> 2. Scanning the ADFS map for disc object fragments may mistakenly
>    find free space fragments in addition to real disc object fragments,
>    leading to chunks of free space appearing in files or directories.
> 
> No one has reported any issues with the filesystem module, so the
> question has to be asked whether there are any users of this code?
> 
> I'm aware that there were some users about ten or more years ago.  I've
> only touched it when problems have been reported to me that needed me
> to investigate something, otherwise I haven't used it myself - so the
> code largely just sits there, mostly untouched except for the odd
> cross-filesystem patch.
> 
> The last "feature" patch was in 2011 by Stuart Swales (copied) adding
> the filetype suffix to filenames.
> 
> That leads on to the question about whether this should be fixed in
> mainline or whether we should put the code out of its misery and remove
> it from the kernel.
> 
> Fixing both issues is fairly trivial, and I already have some fixes
> available, along with some improvements to the rest of the code.
> However, I see little point in pushing that upstream if the code is
> not being used.
> 
> Searching the web, there does seem to be some interest on some forums,
> but that dates from about three years ago, but it also seems that more
> functional solutions (using fuse, with different format support) are
> available.
> 
> Posting to Linux lists probably isn't the best way to find out whether
> there are users of this, so if there are people involved in the Acorn
> communities, please pass this on to more appropriate forums, thanks.
> Please ensure that replies reach me as I don't monitor random web
> forums for example (a reply on a web forum that I don't see is not
> helpful.)
> 
> If I hear nothing positive towards keeping it, then I'll schedule
> fs/adfs for deletion, probably for 5.3.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Thanks Russell

Have posted on the RISC OS Open site. I imagine some people will
complain just because they can. Can't see a need for it in new kernels
myself; people can always use old systems if they need to get data off
old ADFS IDE drives like I had to.

Regards,

Stuart
-- 
Stuart Swales

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus