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:   Sun, 18 Aug 2019 07:38:48 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devel <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
        linux-erofs <linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, tytso <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Darrick <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>, Miao Xie <miaoxie@huawei.com>,
        Li Guifu <bluce.liguifu@huawei.com>,
        Fang Wei <fangwei1@huawei.com>,
        Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
Message-ID: <20190817233843.GA16991@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1163995781.68824.1566084358245.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Richard,

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 01:25:58AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Urspr?ngliche Mail -----
> >> How does erofs compare to squashfs?
> >> IIUC it is designed to be faster. Do you have numbers?
> >> Feel free to point me older mails if you already showed numbers,
> >> I have to admit I didn't follow the development very closely.
> > 
> > You can see the following related material which has microbenchmark
> > tested on my laptop:
> > https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/kccncosschn19eng/19/EROFS%20file%20system_OSS2019_Final.pdf
> > 
> > which was mentioned in the related topic as well:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190815044155.88483-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com/
> 
> Thanks!
> Will read into.

Yes, it was mentioned in the related topic from v1 and I you can have
a try with the latest kernel and enwik9 silesia.tar testdata.

> 
> While digging a little into the code I noticed that you have very few
> checks of the on-disk data.
> For example ->u.i_blkaddr. I gave it a try and created a
> malformed filesystem where u.i_blkaddr is 0xdeadbeef, it causes the kernel
> to loop forever around erofs_read_raw_page().

I don't fuzz all the on-disk fields for EROFS, I will do later..
You can see many in-kernel filesystems are still hardening the related
stuff. Anyway, I will dig into this field you mentioned recently, but
I think it can be fixed easily later.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang 

> 
> Thanks,
> //richard