linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to 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: <20190829233506.GT5281@sasha-vm>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:35:06 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 07:18:16PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:56:31 +0200, Pali Roh?r said:
>
>> I'm not really sure if this exfat implementation is fully suitable for
>> mainline linux kernel.
>>
>> In my opinion, proper way should be to implement exFAT support into
>> existing fs/fat/ code instead of replacing whole vfat/msdosfs by this
>> new (now staging) fat implementation.
>
>> In linux kernel we really do not need two different implementation of
>> VFAT32.
>
>This patch however does have one major advantage over "patch vfat to
>support exfat" - which is that the patch exists.
>
>If somebody comes forward with an actual "extend vfat to do exfat" patch,
>we should at that point have a discussion about relative merits....

This patch going into staging doesn't necessarily mean that one day
it'll get moved to fs/exfat/. It's very possible that the approach would
instead be to use the staging code for reference, build this
functionality in fs/fat/, and kill off the staging code when it's not
needed anymore.

With regards to missing specs/docs/whatever - our main concern with this
release was that we want full interoperability, which is why the spec
was made public as-is without modifications from what was used
internally. There's no "secret sauce" that Microsoft is hiding here.

How about we give this spec/code time to get soaked and reviewed for a
bit, and if folks still feel (in a month or so?) that there are missing
bits of information related to exfat, I'll be happy to go back and try
to get them out as well.

--
Thanks,
Sasha