Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] WARNING in hfs_write_inode

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.s390
Message-ID <2d0bd58fb757e7771d13f82050a546ec5f7be8de.camel__11815.0837182597$1689875563$gmane$org@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Hello!

On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 18:30 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:27:57PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 17:45, Viacheslav Dubeyko <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:37:16PM -0800, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > > > > Also, as far as I can see, available volume in report (mount_0.gz) somehow corrupted already:
> > > > 
> > > > Syzbot generates deliberately-corrupted (aka fuzzed) filesystem images.
> > > > So basically, you can't trust anything you read from the disc.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > If the volume has been deliberately corrupted, then no guarantee that file system
> > > driver will behave nicely. Technically speaking, inode write operation should never
> > > happened for corrupted volume because the corruption should be detected during
> > > b-tree node initialization time. If we would like to achieve such nice state of HFS/HFS+
> > > drivers, then it requires a lot of refactoring/implementation efforts. I am not sure that
> > > it is worth to do because not so many guys really use HFS/HFS+ as the main file
> > > system under Linux.
> > 
> > 
> > Most popular distros will happily auto-mount HFS/HFS+ from anything
> > inserted into USB (e.g. what one may think is a charger). This creates
> > interesting security consequences for most Linux users.
> > An image may also be corrupted non-deliberately, which will lead to
> > random memory corruptions if the kernel trusts it blindly.
> 
> Then we should delete the HFS/HFS+ filesystems.  They're orphaned in
> MAINTAINERS and if distros are going to do such a damnfool thing,
> then we must stop them.

Both HFS and HFS+ work perfectly fine. And if distributions or users are so
sensitive about security, it's up to them to blacklist individual features
in the kernel.

Both HFS and HFS+ have been the default filesystem on MacOS for 30 years
and I don't think it's justified to introduce such a hard compatibility
breakage just because some people are worried about theoretical evil
maid attacks.

HFS/HFS+ mandatory if you want to boot Linux on a classic Mac or PowerMac
and I don't think it's okay to break all these systems running Linux.

Thanks,
Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.