Yep, I'm familiar with the problems, and expect no less. In fact I wrote
much of those patches earlier last year, but I didn't then have any
references available to point to, so I let them be. Since the bit about
spaces not being allowed in filenames didn't hold, it does make the rest
relatively questionable, too, and then you have to consider that even if
something _currently_ doesn't break it, odds are next year they'll put
out something that does. Oh well, but that kind of thinking is the way to
paranoia ;)
On the other hand, if there is interest in getting these into 2.2 (I
consider the process-load effect significant, but not critical as most
people don't use VFAT for anything important, nor do I see any real DoS
opportunity etc.) and the 0-ending is the only major concern (or the
others are like that), it's actually quite cheap source- and code-wise to
slip in a check for the 0 since the character value is being handled
already. However, I question a bit what is the meaning of ASCIIZ string
in a place like this because there isn't space allocated for the ending
zero in the fields, suggesting a need for padding. I guess they could use
0 for padding, though ;)
-Donwulff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/