[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lzip-bug] Tarlz 0.4: Use of 'ustar' format instead of 'posix'; ques

From: Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
Subject: Re: [Lzip-bug] Tarlz 0.4: Use of 'ustar' format instead of 'posix'; question about future of Tarlz utility
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 13:41:24 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

On 01/06/18 13:35, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
Timothy Beryl Grahek wrote:
Thanks. I have copied then to my TODO list and will try to implement
them as time permits. Of course I'll implement first the "limited
posix format" to allow files larger than 8 GB.

Excellent! I am very glad to hear that.

I think I have found an unexpected difficulty. It seems that the pax format has a serious flaw not present in the ustar format. The extended records in the pax extended header are not protected by any checksum in spite of containing critical metadata (file size, filename, file time,...). This may lead to several kinds of undetected corruption.

Please, could you verify[1] that extended records are not protected by any checksum. Thanks.
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/pax.html

Maybe we will need to propose a change to the pax format.

You can use a comment entry for the checksum of the headers or whatever you want. Other tar tools will ignore the entry.

Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]