Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933337Ab1D1Po1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:44:27 -0400 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:52509 "EHLO mail.parknet.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933300Ab1D1PoX (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:44:23 -0400 From: OGAWA Hirofumi To: Michael Karcher Cc: Pavel Machek , dosfstools , mtools , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: End of FAT directories References: <1303498136.8485.128.camel@localhost> <87hb9qnho4.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <1303509408.8485.146.camel@localhost> <87bozxomqd.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <1303558711.8485.166.camel@localhost> <20110428132551.GA5701@ucw.cz> <1303998185.8188.18.camel@localhost> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:44:16 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1303998185.8188.18.camel@localhost> (Michael Karcher's message of "Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:43:05 +0200") Message-ID: <87d3k6idnz.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2646 Lines: 56 Michael Karcher writes: > Am Donnerstag, den 28.04.2011, 15:25 +0200 schrieb Pavel Machek: >> > > For overwriting the >> > > zeroed entry, why we have to check all entries until see next zeroed >> > > (yeah, now, we allowed the crappy data after zeroed)? >> > My point was not about checking all entries until the next zeroed entry, >> > which is overcomplicating stuff. I meant that if we hit the end (i.e. >> > the first zeroed entry) when searching for free slots, in that case we >> > just clear the one entry directly following the inserted entries. This >> > makes sure that no files magically appear. I *do* understand that >> This sounds like a good idea, and costs nothing. I hope we can >> convince Ogawa... > > I am going to implement that and publish a patch. If the patch is clean > enough, maybe we can convince him. But the freedom of open source can't > prevent me from using a patch like that, of course. And maybe it also > helps when the patch gets some testing. Of course, it's good to publish. However if you can't detect buggy or corrupted directory, I wouldn't ack to help buggy stuff. So it can be the mount option, but I can't see at all the point it is in-kernel as FS. >> Kernel should stop at zero invalid entry. I'm not complaining to stop at zero. Rather I acked already if it didn't overwrite after zeroed entry. >> fsck should consider any garbage past zero entry as an error, and zero >> it out. (Complaining about duplicate blocks is unhelpful but better >> than nothing. It should really zero the garbage out.) > > In fact, what you describe is something I would call "consistent". I was > not implying that kernel and dosfsck should do exactly the same thing, > but I was implying that the kernel and dosfsck should either both or > none consider entries past the gap as existing file. > Current state is: both consider past-gap entries valid. Your described > state will be: none consider past-gap entries valid. The behaviour you > describe is exactly what I would imagine as best way to go. Maybe fsck > should ask for "shift post-gap entries/create a dummy deleted entry" > vs. "clear post-gap entries". Yes. Also my opinion is the fsck should get ack from user to overwrite data or salvage (has possibility to salvage) if interactive mode, then fixes it. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/