On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems

Posted Aug 24, 2019 6:12 UTC (Sat) by buck (subscriber, #55985)
In reply to: On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems by dvdeug
Parent article: On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems

> As for "That's the only way to get the average quality up.", who cares? Maybe it helps Huawei, or maybe not, but making EROFS better doesn't make Linux better for all the users out there who aren't running EROFS.

If a user plugs a USB drive in his/her machine and it causes the machine to lock up because it has a broken EROFS filesystem on it, that's not cool. It may not be fair, but there's an argument that can be made for not allowing in additional filesystems that widen the gamut of such problems.

That said, i've never written code for a filesystem or anything else nearly as complex that's supposed to deliver as much functionality, so, yes, i can imagine it may put an unrealistic damper on the possibilities for future awesomeness. I'll trust the LKML arbiters to figure it out.

to post comments

On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems

Posted Aug 24, 2019 17:45 UTC (Sat) by alonz (subscriber, #815) [Link] (1 responses)

One could argue that the behavior of mount(8) (automatically trying all filesystem types) is the actual bug, and that its "auto" mode should restrict itself to using filesystems that are actually suitable for use with the current media. (Many filesystem types, EROFS included, could then be defined as supported only on non-removable media by default.)

Alternatively, the filesystem driver may itself verify that the media type is suitable before even reading the superblock.

(Personally I would love it if we could just use lklfuse for all filesystems on removable media… But it looks like nobody support it.)

On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems

Posted Aug 25, 2019 1:04 UTC (Sun) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Is lklfuse merged into mainline Linux yet?

On-disk format robustness requirements for new filesystems

Posted Aug 24, 2019 19:04 UTC (Sat) by hsiangkao (subscriber, #123981) [Link]

> If a user plugs a USB drive in his/her machine and it causes the machine to lock up because it has a broken EROFS filesystem on it, that's not cool.

We think that's not cool as well, so we are now addressing and will continue actively addressing it.
But that is not absolute standard on this field ---- one hour, two hours, a day, a month, or forever? by some tool? and that is not filesystem-specific issue, but for all on-disk new features...

Again, please give us some time, not long before it resists almost all malformed images (it can already resist more malformed images than weeks before, and we will fix those reports as quick as what we can... that is our attitude on this...)