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, 3 Sep 2018 09:40:05 +0200
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
To:     OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Relax checks for sector size and media type
Message-ID: <20180903074005.7e3guj24ksq2l44c@pali>
References: <20180902131932.11558-1-pali.rohar@gmail.com>
 <87bm9ft5h5.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87bm9ft5h5.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 03 September 2018 16:17:26 OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Windows fastfat.sys driver accepts also media types 0x00 and 0x01 and
> > sector sizes 128 and 256 bytes. Linux mkfs.fat can format disk also to
> > larger FAT sector sizes then 4096 bytes, therefore relax also upper limit
> > restriction.
> 
> > -	if (!is_power_of_2(bpb->fat_sector_size)
> > -	    || (bpb->fat_sector_size < 512)
> > -	    || (bpb->fat_sector_size > 4096)) {
> > +	if (!is_power_of_2(bpb->fat_sector_size)) {
> 
> Just relaxing validation doesn't work. The block layer doesn't support
> smaller than 512, and lager than PAGE_SIZE.  (And in specification, fat
> doesn't support lager than 4096.)

Hi! I just sent this patch for discussion, with links to (now open
source) Windows implementation. I guess that Windows driver
implementation is more "authoritative" then Microsoft's own
specification. It is known that Windows implementation does not match
Microsoft specification.

I know at least 3 FAT specifications (MS EFI FAT, MS/SD card FAT,
ECMA-107) and you are right that Microsoft's one does not allow sector
sizes larger then 4096.

If there is limitation by block layer, then:

1) Why we do not check for PAGE_SIZE?

2) Is check in fat driver really needed (if block layer checks it)?

> >  static inline int fat_valid_media(u8 media)
> >  {
> > -	return 0xf8 <= media || media == 0xf0;
> > +	return 0xf8 <= media || media == 0xf0 || media == 0x00 || media == 0x01;
> >  }
> >  #endif /* !_LINUX_MSDOS_FS_H */
> 
> This is ok though, this would be for ancient floppy media.

Ok.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com