On Wednesday 30 May 2007 19:02:28 Mark Adler wrote:
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [1] For your reference, here is the user code in question:
>
> ...
>
> > if (srclen > 2 && !(data_in[1] & PRESET_DICT) &&
> > ((data_in[0] & 0x0f) == Z_DEFLATED) &&
> > !(((data_in[0]<<8) + data_in[1]) % 31)) {
>
> The funny thing here is that the author felt compelled to use a
> #defined constant for the dictionary bit (PRESET_DICT), but had no
> problem with a numeric constant to isolate the compression method
> (0x0f), or for that matter extracting the window bits from the
> header. The easy way to avoid the use of an internal zlib header
> file here is to simply replace PRESET_DICT with 0x20. That constant
> will never change -- it is part of the definition of the zlib header
> in RFC 1950.
If there is no objection, I'll put together a patch that changes the use in
JFFS2 into a "magic number", complete with documentation on it, and also
moves all of the zlib stuff into a single directory.
> The slightly more involved patch to avoid the problem is to let
> inflate() do all that work for you, including the integrity check on
> the zlib header (% 31). Also this corrects an error in the original
> code, which is that it continues to try to decompress after finding
> that a dictionary is needed or that the zlib header is invalid. In
> this version, a bad header simply returns an error:
>
Does anyone know if doing as Mark suggests would negatively impact the
performance of JFFS2 to such a degree that it could be considered a
regression? I, unfortunately, don't have the hardware to properly test the
code. And, at this point in time, I also don't have enough familiarity with
the JFFS2 code to make such a change myself.
DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
