Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
From: Gao Xiang
Date: Sun Aug 18 2019 - 14:18:22 EST
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.