From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 08:58:12 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] erofs: move erofs out of staging
In-Reply-To: <20190818151154.GA32157@mit.edu>
References: <20190817082313.21040-1-hsiangkao@aol.com>
 <20190817220706.GA11443@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <1163995781.68824.1566084358245.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190817233843.GA16991@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <1405781266.69008.1566116210649.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190818084521.GA17909@hsiangkao-HP-ZHAN-66-Pro-G1>
 <1133002215.69049.1566119033047.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190818090949.GA30276@kroah.com>
 <790210571.69061.1566120073465.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <20190818151154.GA32157@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20190818155812.GB13230@infradead.org>

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019@11:11:54AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Note that of the mainstream file systems, ext4 and xfs don't guarantee
> that it's safe to blindly take maliciously provided file systems, such
> as those provided by a untrusted container, and mount it on a file
> system without problems.  As I recall, one of the XFS developers
> described file system fuzzing reports as a denial of service attack on
> the developers.

I think this greatly misrepresents the general attitute of the XFS
developers.  We take sanity checks for the modern v5 on disk format
very series, and put a lot of effort into handling corrupted file
systems as good as possible, although there are of course no guarantee?.

The quote that you've taken out of context is for the legacy v4 format
that has no checksums and other integrity features.