Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
From: Darrick J. Wong
Date: Mon Aug 19 2019 - 12:10:56 EST
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 04:14:11AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi all,
> 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?
> # !/bin/bash
> 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
mkfs fuzzes the image? Er....
Over in XFS land we have an xfs debugging tool (xfs_db) that knows how
to dump (and write!) most every field of every metadata type. This
makes it fairly easy to write systematic level 0 fuzzing tests that
check how well the filesystem reacts to garbage data (zeroing,
randomizing, oneing, adding and subtracting small integers) in a field.
(It also knows how to trash entire blocks.)
You might want to write such a debugging tool for erofs so that you can
take apart crashed images to get a better idea of what went wrong, and
to write easy fuzzing tests.
> umount mntdir
> mount -t erofs -o loop testdir_fsl.fuzz.img mntdir
> for j in `find mntdir -type f`; do
> md5sum $j > /dev/null
> Gao Xiang
> > Thanks,
> > Gao Xiang