Hi Hch, On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:22:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:16:38AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Ted's observation was about maliciously-crafted filesystems, though, so > > integrity-only features such as metadata checksums are irrelevant. Also the > > filesystem version is irrelevant; anything accepted by the kernel code (even if > > I think allowing users to mount file systems (any of ours) without > privilege is a rather bad idea. But that doesn't mean we should not be > as robust as we can. Optionally disabling support for legacy formats > at compile and/or runtime is something we should actively look into as > well. > > > it's legacy/deprecated) is open attack surface. > > > > I personally consider it *mandatory* that we deal with this stuff. But I can > > understand that we don't do a good job at it, so we shouldn't hold a new > > filesystem to an unfairly high standard relative to other filesystems... > > I very much disagree. We can't really force anyone to fix up old file > systems. But we can very much hold new ones to (slightly) higher > standards. Thats the only way to get the average quality up. Some as > for things like code style - we can't magically fix up all old stuff, > but we can and usually do hold new code to higher standards. (Often not > to standards as high as I'd personally prefer, btw). I personally don't want to discuss about other fses here... I think XFS developers do great jobs all the time and EROFS is a simple file system compared with these generic file systems. I can promise you that our team will fix bug reports in time, and I personally think the current EROFS code is not as bad as a bullsh**t... If you have some time, I'm very happy if you can take some of your precious time on our work... Thanks, Gao Xiang
