Re: [PATCH] Added CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES option
From: tridge
Date: Wed Jul 01 2009 - 07:12:21 EST
Hi Alan,
> > What happens on collision? With 60000 entries in directory, there will
> > be 50% chance of collision. BAD.
>
> Far more surely - its a birthday paradox.
If you want to do it accurately, the maximum number of long filenames
in a VFAT directory is actually 32767. (it isn't 65536, as each long
filename consumes at least two 8.3 entries, plus you lose the . and
.. entries).
With the patch I've posted there are 30 bits of randomness in each
entry. You could do an accurate binomial expansion to get the exact
probability, but a very good approximation using exponentiation comes
out as a 39.3% chance of a single duplicate appearing in a directory
that is fully populated.
As I mentioned to Pavel, this isn't the whole story though. To cause
the bluescreen the duplicate entries need to be accessed by WindowsXP
in quick succession in a particular pattern. This lowers the
probability a lot. Exactly how much is hard to estimate, but
experiments I've done with deliberately higher probabilities (ie. less
bits of randomness) show that the probability of the bluescreen is
_very_ low.
> Agreed 100%. I'm also not sure it should be called "vfat" when operating
> in this mode as it's not vfat any more - it needs a new name.
If the code differed significantly between the two implementations I'd
probably agree, but as the two are extremely close I think maintaining
a separate filesystem isn't worth it.
Cheers, Tridge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/