Re: [PATCH] hpfs: add checks for ea addresses

[Antoni Pokusinski]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:21:47PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2025, Antoni Pokusinski wrote:
> 
> > > If you get a KASAN warning when using "check=normal" or "check=strict", 
> > > report it and I will fix it; with "check=none" it is not supposed to work.
> > > 
> > > Mikulas
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm just wondering what should be the expected kernel behaviour in the situation where
> > "check=none" and the "ea_offs", "acl_size_s", "ea_size_s" fields of fnode are corrupt?
> > If we assume that in such case running into some undefined behavior (which is accessing
> > an unknown memory area) is alright, then the code does not need any changes.
> > But if we'd like to prevent it, then I think we should always check the extended
> > attribute address regardless of the "check" parameter, as demonstrated
> > in the patch.
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > Antoni
> 
> There is a trade-off between speed and resiliency. If the user wants 
> maximum speed and uses the filesystem only on trusted input, he can choose 
> "check=none". If the user wants less performance and uses the filesystem 
> on untrusted input, he can select "check=normal" (the default). If the 
> user is modifying the code and wants maximum safeguards, he should select 
> "check=strict" (that will degrade performance significantly, but it will 
> stop the filesystem as soon as possible if something goes wrong).
> 
> I think there is no need to add some middle ground where "check=none" 
> would check some structures and won't check others.
> 
> Mikulas
>

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah I think I agree with your point, I
guess that the patch is not necessary then.

Kind regards,
Antoni