Thank you for your quick review.

On 2020/08/27 12:19, Namjae Jeon wrote:
+       i = ES_INDEX_NAME;
+       while ((ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, i++, TYPE_NAME))) {
Please find the way to access name entries like ep_file, ep_stream
without calling exfat_get_validated_dentry().

Hmm, it's a hard order.
I can't separate length/type validation and extraction.
Sorry, I have no good idea.


@@ -590,17 +587,16 @@ int exfat_remove_entries(struct inode *inode, struct 
exfat_chain *p_dir,  void
exfat_update_dir_chksum_with_entry_set(struct exfat_entry_set_cache *es)  {
        int chksum_type = CS_DIR_ENTRY, i;
-       unsigned short chksum = 0;
+       u16 chksum = 0;
        struct exfat_dentry *ep;

        for (i = 0; i < es->num_entries; i++) {
-               ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, i);
+               ep = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, i, TYPE_ALL);
Ditto, You do not need to repeatedly call exfat_get_validated_dentry() for the 
entries
which got from exfat_get_dentry_set().

Even if I could do that, it would be very difficult to implement a checksum 
patch.
It is also difficult to use for rename, move, delete.
(these also have no verification of neme-length and set-checksum)


        /* validiate cached dentries */
-       for (i = 1; i < num_entries; i++) {
-               ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, i);
-               if (!exfat_validate_entry(exfat_get_entry_type(ep), &mode))
-                       goto free_es;
+       es->ep_stream = exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, ES_INDEX_STREAM, 
TYPE_STREAM);
+       if (!es->ep_stream)
+               goto free_es;
+
+       if (max_entries == ES_ALL_ENTRIES) {
+               for (i = 0; i < ES_FILE(es).num_ext; i++)
+                       if (!exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, ES_INDEX_STREAM + 
i, TYPE_SECONDARY))
+                               goto free_es;
+               for (i = 0; i * EXFAT_FILE_NAME_LEN < ES_STREAM(es).name_len; 
i++)
+                       if (!exfat_get_validated_dentry(es, ES_INDEX_NAME + i, 
TYPE_NAME))
+                               goto free_es;
Why do you unnecessarily check entries with two loops?
Please refer to the patch I sent.

This order is possible.
However, TYPE_SECONDARY loop will be back as checksum loop.

In the next patch, I can fix the 'TYPE_SECONDARY loop' order.
do you need it?


BR
---
Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada...@gmail.com>


Reply via email to