linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] fat: add the msdos_format

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: <YSujmt9vman41ecj@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 29 Aug 2021 15:11:22 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     "Caleb D.S. Brzezinski" <calebdsb@...tonmail.com>
Cc:     hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fat: add the msdos_format_name() filename cache

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 02:25:29PM +0000, Caleb D.S. Brzezinski wrote:
> Implement the main msdos_format_name() filename cache. If used as a
> module, all memory allocated for the cache is freed when the module is
> de-registered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Caleb D.S. Brzezinski <calebdsb@...tonmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/fat/namei_msdos.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c b/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
> index 7561674b1..f9d4f63c3 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
> +++ b/fs/fat/namei_msdos.c
> @@ -124,6 +124,16 @@ static int msdos_format_name(const unsigned char *name, int len,
>  	unsigned char *walk;
>  	unsigned char c;
>  	int space;
> +	u64 hash;
> +	struct msdos_name_node *node;
> +
> +	/* check if the name is already in the cache */
> +
> +	hash = msdos_fname_hash(name);
> +	if (find_fname_in_cache(res, hash))
> +		return 0;

Huh?  How could that possibly work, seeing that
	* your hash function only looks at the first 8 characters
	* your find_fname_in_cache() assumes that hash collisions
are impossible, which is... unlikely, considering the nature of
that hash function
	* find_fname_in_cache(res, hash) copies at most 8 characters
into res in case of match.  Where does the extension come from?

Out of curiosity, how have you tested that thing?