Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:17:34 +0100
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Anatoly Trosinenko <anatoly.trosinenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FAT: Operating on broken FAT FS causes the write syscall to
 return negative number not equal to -1
Message-ID: <20180716141734.01ddee8c@alans-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <CAE5jQCcs2x4myTHUhNmHPZvhMuPsrkzLmiqqeF5wzZ-Hf5druQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE5jQCe4nX8m1f5jPL57GeU32CftNv+NvgNmZxufH85nun1o7w@mail.gmail.com>
        <878t6c7f8p.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
        <20180715143043.GM30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
        <CAE5jQCcs2x4myTHUhNmHPZvhMuPsrkzLmiqqeF5wzZ-Hf5druQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Oops, I was just doing some testing and thought that correct behavior
> for crafted FS is to return arbitrary valid error code (like -EIO) or
> some arbitrary data, say, not larger than FS (not disclosing the
> kernel memory, of course). Please excuse me if I was wrong. If fixing
> this would slow down some hot code path, then I am not insisting on
> returning valid errno. :)
> 
> Meanwhile, how should be considered such discrepancies with man pages
> for invalid FS images: should it be considered low priority bug,
> not-a-bug or feature request (diagnostics)?

If you can crash the machine or exploit it with a carefully crafted disk
then its serious. If you get weird behaviour only it's not too serious.

It's nice (but often not possible) if a filesystem at least forces itself
R/O when it detects a corruption to avoid doing more damage.

Alan