linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging

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: <20190818181654.GA1617@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 02:16:55 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@....com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Darrick <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-erofs <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Li Guifu <bluce.liguifu@...wei.com>,
        Fang Wei <fangwei1@...wei.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging

Hi Hch,

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:47:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:29:38AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > Not sure what you're even disagreeing with, as I *do* expect new filesystems to
> > be held to a high standard, and to be written with the assumption that the
> > on-disk data may be corrupted or malicious.  We just can't expect the bar to be
> > so high (e.g. no bugs) that it's never been attained by *any* filesystem even
> > after years/decades of active development.  If the developers were careful, the
> > code generally looks robust, and they are willing to address such bugs as they
> > are found, realistically that's as good as we can expect to get...
>
> Well, the impression I got from Richards quick look and the reply to it is
> that there is very little attempt to validate the ondisk data structure
> and there is absolutely no priority to do so.  Which is very different
> from there is a bug or two here and there.

As my second reply to Richard, I didn't fuzz all the on-disk fields for EROFS.
and as my reply to Richard / Greg, current EROFS is used on the top of dm-verity.

I cannot say how well EROFS will be performed on malformed images (and you can
also find the bug richard pointed out is a miswritten break->continue by myself).

I posted the upstream EROFS post on July 4, 2019 and a month and a half later,
no one can tell me (yes, thanks for kind people reply me about their suggestion)
what we should do next (you can see these emails, I sent many times) to meet
the minimal upstream requirements and rare people can even dip into my code.

That is all I want to say. I will work on autofuzz these days, and I want to
know how to meet your requirements on this (you can tell us your standard,
how well should we do).

OK, you don't reply to my post once, I have no idea how to get your first reply.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang