[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7d7ec460-b5ab-68da-658b-2104f393b4e8@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:07:25 +0900
From: Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@...il.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Cc: kohada.tetsuhiro@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
mori.takahiro@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
motai.hirotaka@...mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
'Sungjong Seo' <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] exfat: integrates dir-entry getting and validation
Thank you for quick reply!
On 2020/08/26 13:19, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>> On 2020/08/26 10:03, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>>>> Second: Range validation and type validation should not be separated.
>>>> When I started making this patch, I intended to add only range validation.
>>>> However, after the caller gets the ep, the type validation follows.
>>>> Get ep, null check of ep (= range verification), type verification is a series of procedures.
>>>> There would be no reason to keep them independent anymore.
>>>> Range and type validation is enforced when the caller uses ep.
>>> You can add a validate flags as argument of exfat_get_dentry_set(), e.g. none, basic and strict.
>>> none : only range validation.
>>> basic : range + type validation.
>>> strict : range + type + checksum and name length, etc.
>>
>> Currently, various types of verification will not be needed.
>> Let's add it when we need it.
>>>
>>>>> - /* validiate cached dentries */
>>>>> - for (i = 1; i < num_entries; i++) {
>>>>> - ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, i);
>>>>> - if (!exfat_validate_entry(exfat_get_entry_type(ep), &mode))
>>>>> + ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, ENTRY_STREAM);
>>>>> + if (!ep || ep->type != EXFAT_STREAM)
>>>>> + goto free_es;
>>>>> + es->de[ENTRY_STREAM] = ep;
>>>>
>>>> The value contained in stream-ext dir-entry should not be used before validating the EntrySet
>> checksum.
>>>> So I would insert EntrySet checksum validation here.
>>>> In that case, the checksum verification loop would be followed by the
>>>> TYPE_NAME verification loop, can you acceptable?
>>> Yes. That would be great.
>>
>> OK.
>> I'll add TYPE_NAME verification after checksum verification, in next patch.
>> However, I think it is enough to validate TYPE_NAME when extracting name.
>> Could you please tell me why you think you need TYPE_NAME validation here?
> I've told you on previous mail. This function should return validated dentry set after checking
> file->stream->name in sequence.
Yes. I understand that the current implementation checks in that order.
Sorry, my question was unclear.
Why do you think you should leave the TYPE_NAME validation in this function?
What kind of problem are you worried about if this function does not validate TYPE_NAME?
(for preserve the current behavior?)
Don't worry, I will add TYPE_NAME verification to the v4 patch.
I will post it later today.
BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists