linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] exfat: redefine PBR as boot

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, 28 May 2020 21:27:35 +0900
From:   Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@...il.com>
To:     Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
Cc:     kohada.tetsuhiro@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        mori.takahiro@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        motai.hirotaka@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        'Namjae Jeon' <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] exfat: redefine PBR as boot_sector

> [snip]
>> +/* EXFAT: Main and Backup Boot Sector (512 bytes) */ struct boot_sector
>> +{
>> +	__u8	jmp_boot[BOOTSEC_JUMP_BOOT_LEN];
>> +	__u8	oem_name[BOOTSEC_OEM_NAME_LEN];
> 
> According to the exFAT specification, fs_name and BOOTSEC_FS_NAME_LEN look
> better.

Oops.
I sent v2 patches, before I noticed this comment,

I'll make another small patch, OK?

BTW
I have a concern about fs_name.
The exfat specification says that this field is "EXFAT".

I think it's a important field for determining the filesystem.
However, in this patch, I gave up checking this field.
Because there is no similar check in FATFS.
Do you know why Linux FATFS does not check this filed?
And, what do you think of checking this field?

BR