Re: [PATCH] Added CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES option

[Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>]

On 07/06/2009 11:41 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 14:48 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2009 01:50 PM, tridge@samba.org wrote:
>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>
>>>> We did of course consider that, and the changes to the patch to
>>>> implement collision avoidance are relatively simple. We didn't do it
>>>> as it would weaken the legal basis behind the patch. I'll leave it to
>>>> John Lanza (the LF patent attorney) to expand on that if you want more
>>>> information.
>>>>
>>> You completely lost me here. And I thought I did understand the patent
>>> and the fix.
>>>
>>> what is the difference between.
>>>
>>> short_name = rand(sid);
>>> and
>>> short_name = sid++;
>>>
>>> Now if you would do
>>> short_name = MD5(long_name);
>>>
>>> That I understand since short_name is some function of long_name
>>> but if I'm just inventing the short_name out of my hat. In what legal
>>> system does it matter what is my random function I use?
>> We're sort of arguing moot technicalities here.  If you look at the way
>> the filename is constructed, given the constraints of a leading space
>> and a NULL, the need for a NULL padded leading slash extension and the
>> need to put control characters in the remaining bytes, we've only got 30
>> bits to play with, we're never going to avoid collisions in a space of
>> up to 31 bits.
> 
>> Technically, a random function is at least as good at
>> collision avoidance as any deterministic solution ...
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> A deterministic value based on position in the directory, or by
> checking for collisions and avoiding them, will _never_ collide,
> provided you limit directories to no more than 2^30 entries, which is

Exactly this is the key, find the real limit and enforce it.

> reasonable for FAT.
> 
> Whereas a random value can collide.
> That's a fundamental technical difference.
> 
> A quick read of the Birthday Problem page on Wikipedia leads to:
> 
>     With a directory of 1000 files, not especially rare with a camera
>     or MP3 players, and 30-bit random numbers:
> 
>     The probably of a collision is 0.04% [1]
> 
>     If 10000 people each have a directory of 1000 files (not
>     unreasonable given the huge number of people who use FAT media),
>     the probability that any of them have a collision is approximately
>     100%.
> 
>     
> [1] perl -e '$d = 2.0**30; $n = 1000; $x = 1; for $k (1..$n-1) { $x *= (1 - $k/$d); } printf "Probability = %f%%\n", 100*(1-$x);'
> 
> In other words, using random values you are _guaranteeing_ collisions
> for a few users.
> 

Thanks, I thought it was just me.

> So the argument comes down to: Does it matter if there are collisions?
> 
> Tridge's testing didn't blue screen Windows XP.
> Tridge's testing did run a lot of operaitons.
> 
> But Tridge isn't 10000 people doing crazy diverse things with
> different devices in all sorts of systematic but different patterns
> over a period of years.
> 

What? you say there are 10,000 people with cameras that are using Linux
in the world ;-)

> Given it's technically trivial to avoid collisions completely, and
> there is some risk of breakage, even though it would be rare, there
> had better be a good reason for not doing it.
> 

I wish the lawyers people would come forward, as promised,,and explain what
are the constraints on the short_name, given a long_name is present.
I'm still waiting for that private mail in my e-box. If the names do not
correspond at all but are both valid, why is that a problem?

> -- Jamie

Thanks
Boaz