linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] exfat: remove useless check in exfat_move

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6a0364e6-2192-439d-f874-11402dc8009c@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:41:58 +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,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        'Sungjong Seo' <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] exfat: remove useless check in exfat_move_file()


>>> BTW
>>> Are you busy now?
>> I'm sorry, I'm so busy for my full time work :( Anyway, I'm trying to review serious bug patches or
>> bug reports first.
>> Other patches, such as clean-up or code refactoring, may take some time to review.
>>
>>> I am waiting for your reply about "integrates dir-entry getting and
>>> validation" patch.
>> As I know, your patch is being under review by Namjae.
> I already gave comments and a patch, but you said you can't do it.
> I'm sorry, But I can't accept an incomplete patch. I will directly fix it later.

Of course, I understand that you can't accept a under-discussed patch.

I think you know what I'm trying to do, with previous patches.
Unfortunately, I couldn't implement it properly using the patch you provided.
But I don't think the checksum and name-lenth issues should be left unresolved.
(How do you think?)
So I want you to think with me.

I still feel we haven't discussed this enough.
I still don't understand what you think is the problem with the patch.
Where and what kind of problems do you think the patch has?
- performance?
- wrong behavior?
- readability?
- runtime cost?
- style?
- other?

I think I explained the reason for each implementation.
If it's not enough, I'd like to explain it in more detail.


BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@...il.com>