Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] exfat: integrates dir-entry getting and validation | From | Tetsuhiro Kohada <> | Date | Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:44:36 +0900 |
| |
>>>> + i = 2; >>>> + while ((ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, i++, TYPE_NAME))) { >>> As Sungjong said, I think that TYPE_NAME seems right to be validated in exfat_get_dentry_set(). >> >> First, it is possible to correctly determine that "Immediately follow the Stream Extension directory >> entry as a consecutive series" >> whether the TYPE_NAME check is implemented here or exfat_get_dentry_set(). >> It's functionally same, so it is also right to validate in either. >> >> Second, the current implementation does not care for NameLength field, as I replied to Sungjong. >> If name is not terminated with zero, the name will be incorrect.(With or without my patch) I think >> TYPE_NAME and NameLength validation should not be separated from the name extraction. >> If validate TYPE_NAME in exfat_get_dentry_set(), NameLength validation and name extraction should also >> be implemented there. >> (Otherwise, a duplication check with exfat_get_dentry_set() and here.) I will add NameLength >> validation here. > Okay.
Thank you for your understanding.
>> Therefore, TYPE_NAME validation here should not be omitted. >> >> Third, getting dentry and entry-type validation should be integrated. >> These no longer have to be primitive. >> The integration simplifies caller error checking.
>>>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/file.c b/fs/exfat/file.c index >>>> 6707f3eb09b5..b6b458e6f5e3 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/exfat/file.c >>>> +++ b/fs/exfat/file.c >>>> @@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ int __exfat_truncate(struct inode *inode, loff_t new_size) >>>> ES_ALL_ENTRIES); >>>> if (!es) >>>> return -EIO; >>>> - ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, 0); >>>> - ep2 = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, 1); >>>> + ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, 0, TYPE_FILE); >>>> + ep2 = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, 1, TYPE_STREAM); >>> TYPE_FILE and TYPE_STREAM was already validated in exfat_get_dentry_set(). >>> Isn't it unnecessary duplication check ? >> >> No, as you say. >> Although TYPE is specified, it is not good not to check the null of ep/ep2. >> However, with TYPE_ALL, it becomes difficult to understand what purpose ep/ep2 is used for. >> Therefore, I proposed adding ep_file/ep_stream to es, and here >> ep = es->ep_file; >> ep2 = es->ep_stream; >> >> How about this? > You can factor out exfat_get_dentry_cached() from exfat_get_validated_dentry() and use it here.
I actually implemented and use it, but I feel it is not so good. - Since there are two functions to get from es, so it's a bit confusing which one is better for use. - There was the same anxiety as using exfat_get_validated_dentry() in that there is no NULL check of ep got with exfat_get_dentry_cached().
Whichever function I use, there are places where I check the return value and where I don't. This will cause missing entry-type validation or missing return value check,in the future. I think it's easier to use by including it as a validated object in the member of exfat_entry_set_cache.
> And then, You can rename ep and ep2 to ep_file and ep_stream.
I propose a slightly different approach than last. Add members to exfat_entry_set_cache as below. struct exfat_de_file *de_file; struct exfat_de_stream *de_stream; And, use these as below. es->de_file->attr = cpu_to_le16(exfat_make_attr(inode)); es->de_stream->valid_size = cpu_to_le64(on_disk_size);
exfat_de_file/exfat_de_stream corresponds to the file dir-entry/stream dir-enty structure in the exfat_dentry union. We can use the validated valid values directly. Furthermore, these are strongly typed.
>> Or is it better to specify TYPE_ALL? >> >> >> BTW >> It's been about a month since I posted this patch. >> In the meantime, I created a NameLength check and a checksum validation based on this patch. >> Can you review those as well? > Let me see the patches.
Thanks a lot. For now, I will create and post a V3 patch with this proposal. After that, I will recreate the NameLength check and a checksum validation patches based on the V3 patch and post them. (Should I post these as an RFC?)
BR --- Kohada Tetsuhiro <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@dc.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>
| |