Hi Richard, On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 01:25:58AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > ----- Urspr?ngliche Mail ----- > >> How does erofs compare to squashfs? > >> IIUC it is designed to be faster. Do you have numbers? > >> Feel free to point me older mails if you already showed numbers, > >> I have to admit I didn't follow the development very closely. > > > > You can see the following related material which has microbenchmark > > tested on my laptop: > > https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/kccncosschn19eng/19/EROFS%20file%20system_OSS2019_Final.pdf > > > > which was mentioned in the related topic as well: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190815044155.88483-1-gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks! > Will read into. Yes, it was mentioned in the related topic from v1 and I you can have a try with the latest kernel and enwik9 silesia.tar testdata. > > While digging a little into the code I noticed that you have very few > checks of the on-disk data. > For example ->u.i_blkaddr. I gave it a try and created a > malformed filesystem where u.i_blkaddr is 0xdeadbeef, it causes the kernel > to loop forever around erofs_read_raw_page(). I don't fuzz all the on-disk fields for EROFS, I will do later.. You can see many in-kernel filesystems are still hardening the related stuff. Anyway, I will dig into this field you mentioned recently, but I think it can be fixed easily later. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Thanks, > //richard _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
