There's no good reason for us to support this; we should
expect paths to be canonicalized. In theory we could handle
this, but I am doubtful anyone actually relies on it.
In EROFS these are supposed to be "hard links" to the relevant
directories; the EROFS generation adds them if they don't
exist. I tried to do stronger validation at the lcfs_node_*
level but that is trickier.
writer: Also check for dir hardlinks when canonicalizing tree
While we have a check in mkcomposefs.c, let's also have one
at the C API level because we want to guard against misuse/attack
from something directly operating on that API.
mkcomposefs: Fail on an empty symlink target
This one previously ended up with a NULL pointer deference in the bowels of the EROFS generation.
Signed-off-by: Colin Walters walters@verbum.org
mkcomposefs: Reject
.and..in pathsThere's no good reason for us to support this; we should expect paths to be canonicalized. In theory we could handle this, but I am doubtful anyone actually relies on it.
In EROFS these are supposed to be "hard links" to the relevant directories; the EROFS generation adds them if they don't exist. I tried to do stronger validation at the
lcfs_node_*level but that is trickier.Let's just reject at the dump file for now.
Signed-off-by: Colin Walters walters@verbum.org
tests: Add a test case that directories can't be hardlinked
Hooray! We were actually validating this already. Just another corner case I thought of.
Signed-off-by: Colin Walters walters@verbum.org
writer: Also check for dir hardlinks when canonicalizing tree
While we have a check in
mkcomposefs.c, let's also have one at the C API level because we want to guard against misuse/attack from something directly operating on that API.Signed-off-by: Colin Walters walters@verbum.org
rust/dumpfile: More validation
Signed-off-by: Colin Walters walters@verbum.org