Re: [Lzip-bug] Tarlz 0.4: Use of 'ustar' format instead of 'posix'; question about future of Tarlz utility

[Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado]

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