From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: richard@nod.at (Richard Weinberger)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 11:03:53 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
In-Reply-To: <20190818084521.GA17909@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
References: <20190817082313.21040-1-hsiangkao@aol.com>
 <1746679415.68815.1566076790942.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190817220706.GA11443@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <1163995781.68824.1566084358245.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190817233843.GA16991@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <1405781266.69008.1566116210649.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190818084521.GA17909@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
Message-ID: <1133002215.69049.1566119033047.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>

----- Urspr?ngliche Mail -----
> I agree with you, but what can we do now is trying our best to fuzz
> all the fields.
> 
> So, what is your opinion about EROFS?

All I'm saying is that you should not blindly trust the disk.

Another thing that raises my attention is in superblock_read():
        memcpy(sbi->volume_name, layout->volume_name,
               sizeof(layout->volume_name));

Where do you check whether ->volume_name has a NUL terminator?
Currently this field has no user, maybe will add a check upon usage.
But this kind of things makes me wonder.

Thanks,
//richard