Hi Hch, On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:47:02AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:29:38AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Not sure what you're even disagreeing with, as I *do* expect new filesystems to > > be held to a high standard, and to be written with the assumption that the > > on-disk data may be corrupted or malicious. We just can't expect the bar to be > > so high (e.g. no bugs) that it's never been attained by *any* filesystem even > > after years/decades of active development. If the developers were careful, the > > code generally looks robust, and they are willing to address such bugs as they > > are found, realistically that's as good as we can expect to get... > > Well, the impression I got from Richards quick look and the reply to it is > that there is very little attempt to validate the ondisk data structure > and there is absolutely no priority to do so. Which is very different > from there is a bug or two here and there. As my second reply to Richard, I didn't fuzz all the on-disk fields for EROFS. and as my reply to Richard / Greg, current EROFS is used on the top of dm-verity. I cannot say how well EROFS will be performed on malformed images (and you can also find the bug richard pointed out is a miswritten break->continue by myself). I posted the upstream EROFS post on July 4, 2019 and a month and a half later, no one can tell me (yes, thanks for kind people reply me about their suggestion) what we should do next (you can see these emails, I sent many times) to meet the minimal upstream requirements and rare people can even dip into my code. That is all I want to say. I will work on autofuzz these days, and I want to know how to meet your requirements on this (you can tell us your standard, how well should we do). OK, you don't reply to my post once, I have no idea how to get your first reply. Thanks, Gao Xiang
