linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/staging/exfat - by default, prohibit mount of fat/vfat

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:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 20:48:36 -0400
From:   "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/staging/exfat - by default, prohibit mount of fat/vfat

On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:45:03 -0700, Christoph Hellwig said:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:42:39PM -0400, Valdis Kl��tnieks wrote:
> > Concerns have been raised about the exfat driver accidentally mounting
> > fat/vfat file systems.  Add an extra configure option to help prevent that.
>
> Just remove that code.  This is exactly what I fear about this staging
> crap, all kinds of half-a***ed patches instead of trying to get anything

Explain how it's half-a**ed.  You worry about accidental mounting, meanwhile
down in the embedded space there are memory-constrained machines that
don't want separate vfat and exfat drivers sitting around in memory. If you
have a better patch that addresses both concerns, feel free to submit it.

> done.  Given that you signed up as the maintainer for this what is your
> plan forward on it?  What development did you on the code and what are
> your next steps?

Well, the *original* plan was to get it into the tree someplace so it can get
review and updates from others.  Given the amount of press the Microsoft
announcement had, we were *hoping* there would be some momentum and
people actually looking at the code and feeding me patches. I've gotten a
half dozen already today....

Although if you prefer, it can just sit out-of-tree until I've got a perfect driver
without input or review from anybody.  But I can't think of *any* instance where
that model has actually worked.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped