Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
From: Gao Xiang
Date: Sun Aug 18 2019 - 16:14:32 EST
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 02:16:55AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 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.
I have made a simple fuzzer to inject messy in inode metadata,
dir data, compressed indexes and super block,
I am testing with some given dirs and the following script.
Does it look reasonable?
mkdir -p mntdir
for ((i=0; i<1000; ++i)); do
mkfs/mkfs.erofs -F$i testdir_fsl.fuzz.img testdir_fsl > /dev/null 2>&1
mount -t erofs -o loop testdir_fsl.fuzz.img mntdir
for j in `find mntdir -type f`; do
md5sum $j > /dev/null
> Gao Xiang