+ i = 2;
+ while ((ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, i++, TYPE_NAME))) {
As Sungjong said, I think that TYPE_NAME seems right to be validated in exfat_get_dentry_set().
First, it is possible to correctly determine that "Immediately follow the Stream Extension directory
entry as a consecutive series"
whether the TYPE_NAME check is implemented here or exfat_get_dentry_set().
It's functionally same, so it is also right to validate in either.
Second, the current implementation does not care for NameLength field, as I replied to Sungjong.
If name is not terminated with zero, the name will be incorrect.(With or without my patch) I think
TYPE_NAME and NameLength validation should not be separated from the name extraction.
If validate TYPE_NAME in exfat_get_dentry_set(), NameLength validation and name extraction should also
be implemented there.
(Otherwise, a duplication check with exfat_get_dentry_set() and here.) I will add NameLength
validation here.
Okay.
Thank you for your understanding.
Therefore, TYPE_NAME validation here should not be omitted.
Third, getting dentry and entry-type validation should be integrated.
These no longer have to be primitive.
The integration simplifies caller error checking.
diff --git a/fs/exfat/file.c b/fs/exfat/file.c index
6707f3eb09b5..b6b458e6f5e3 100644
--- a/fs/exfat/file.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/file.c
@@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ int __exfat_truncate(struct inode *inode, loff_t new_size)
ES_ALL_ENTRIES);
if (!es)
return -EIO;
- ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, 0);
- ep2 = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, 1);
+ ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, 0, TYPE_FILE);
+ ep2 = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, 1, TYPE_STREAM);
TYPE_FILE and TYPE_STREAM was already validated in exfat_get_dentry_set().
Isn't it unnecessary duplication check ?
No, as you say.
Although TYPE is specified, it is not good not to check the null of ep/ep2.
However, with TYPE_ALL, it becomes difficult to understand what purpose ep/ep2 is used for.
Therefore, I proposed adding ep_file/ep_stream to es, and here
ep = es->ep_file;
ep2 = es->ep_stream;
How about this?
You can factor out exfat_get_dentry_cached() from exfat_get_validated_dentry() and use it here.
I actually implemented and use it, but I feel it is not so good.
- Since there are two functions to get from es, so it's a bit confusing which one is better for use.
- There was the same anxiety as using exfat_get_validated_dentry() in that there is no NULL check of
ep got with exfat_get_dentry_cached().
Whichever function I use, there are places where I check the return value and where I don't.
This will cause missing entry-type validation or missing return value check,in the future.
I think it's easier to use by including it as a validated object in the member of exfat_entry_set_cache.
And then, You can rename ep and ep2 to ep_file and ep_stream.
I propose a slightly different approach than last.
Add members to exfat_entry_set_cache as below.
struct exfat_de_file *de_file;
struct exfat_de_stream *de_stream;
And, use these as below.
es->de_file->attr = cpu_to_le16(exfat_make_attr(inode));
es->de_stream->valid_size = cpu_to_le64(on_disk_size);
exfat_de_file/exfat_de_stream corresponds to the file dir-entry/stream dir-enty structure in the exfat_dentry union.
We can use the validated valid values directly.
Furthermore, these are strongly typed.
Or is it better to specify TYPE_ALL?
BTW
It's been about a month since I posted this patch.
In the meantime, I created a NameLength check and a checksum validation based on this patch.
Can you review those as well?
Let me see the patches.
Thanks a lot.
For now, I will create and post a V3 patch with this proposal.
After that, I will recreate the NameLength check and a checksum validation patches based on the V3 patch and post them.
(Should I post these as an RFC?)
BR
---
Kohada Tetsuhiro <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
