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]

Message-ID: <0bd201d63579$f9b03d00$ed10b700$@samsung.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 14:28:24 +0900
From:   "Sungjong Seo" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
To:     "'Tetsuhiro Kohada'" <kohada.t2@...il.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?

No, It make sense to make v3, because you have renamed the variables in
boot_sector on this patch.

> 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?

FATFS has the same field named "oem_name" and whatever is okay for its value.
However, in case of exFAT, it is an important field to determine filesystem.

I think it would be better to check this field for exFAT-fs.
Would you like to contribute new patch for checking it?

> 
> BR