> 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