Re: [PATCH 0/2] squashfs: harden fragment index table sizing

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 03:48:31 +0100 (BST) Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> > On 29/08/2026 00:37 BST Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > Sashiko review of this series claims to have found a whole bunch of
> > similar issues which you may choose to address:
> > 
> > 	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260822143328.68867-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com
> > 
> > I don't know how useful this report will be - the first part seems
> > wrong in lots of ways, as if Sashiko was using an ancient copy of the
> > code.  But the things it claims aren't there have been present since
> > 2018.
> > 
> 
> I have been receiving a lot of AI generated issues similar to these on the
> Squashfs-tools code and the Squashfs kernel code over the last month.
> 
> I have not been idle and ignoring them, and I have been spent the last
> couple of weeks fixing them full-time in the Squashfs-tools code, and
> the kernel code.
> 
> In the Squashfs-tools code I have reviewed about 20,000 lines of code so
> far, and this has generated over 50 commits.  These commits I have
> committed to the Squashfs-tools git-hub repository here
> 
> https://github.com/plougher/squashfs-tools
> 
> I am also most of the way through reviewing the Squashfs kernel code, it
> is about 70% complete.  So far it has generated 12 patches, and there
> will be more.  Obviously the kernel patches are queued up for a posting
> next week.

Cool, thanks for the diligence.  Lots of projects appear to be in the
same boat at present - hang in there!

> So I am not asleep at the wheel here, I know about them and I am
> addressing them.

I hope it didn't sound like I was implying such a thing!

For a patch series like this: it looks correct enough to me so my
approach is to push it out for external testing and to sit on it
indefinitely until I hear from Maintainer.