* Chris Mason (chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 07:31 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Pavel Machek (pavel@xxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in > > > production' and should survive it... > > > > I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of > > vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, > > hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. > > > > They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have > > time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in > > buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 > > > > If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list > > or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know > > > > squashfs is in the kernel now, that would be good to see as well. I > didn't realize you were doing such extensive tests, thanks for doing > them. I already tested squashfs. One issue is basically a problem with the zlib-api for which i just posted a patch here http://marc.info/?t=123212807300003&r=1&w=2 The other is an overwritten redzone (also reported in this thread http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=123212794425497&w=2) Looks like a length parameter is passed to squashfs_read_data which is bigger than ((msblk->block_size >> msblk->devblksize_log2) + 1), so the kcalloced buffer gets overwritten later. Maybe you want to take a look at this issue. Those are the only two problems i have seen so far with ~8000 tested squashfs images. Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
