linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] Support non-BMP characters in UDF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 May 2012 22:04:59 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko 
	<phcoder@...il.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] Support non-BMP characters in UDF

On Wed 16-05-12 17:14:23, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On 16.05.2012 16:34, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 16-05-12 01:10:22, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >> I also have a counterpart for mkudffs/udf-tools but sourceforge homepage
> >> seems to be abandoned does anybody know if there is a new homepage for
> >> mkudffs?
  Oh, and I forgot to reply here: mkudffs is really unmaintained. But also
it's not used too much AFAIK. Most people use genisoimage to generate udf
filesystems.

> >   Thanks for the patch!
> 
> You're welcome. Thanks for reviewing.
> 
>  It looks OK but shouldn't we rather use the helper
> > functions you introduced in the NLS code? It look wrong to replicate
> > decoding of UTF16 here.
> > 
> 
> The helper functions are limited to buffers aligned on 16-bit boundary
> which is not the case of this buffer. I see following solutions:
  I see.

> 0) Homegrown like in previous patch
> 1) Add a new "endianness" UTF16_LITTLE_ENDIAN_UNALIGNED
> 2) Split code for "compressed" vs "uncompressed" and copy the string to
> a temporary buffer in "uncompressed" branch.
> 3) Like 2 but make buffer sliding and contain only 2 elements.
> 
> I think 1 or 3 would be the most reasonable. Which solution do you prefer?
  I think 1 would be the best since then it can be easily reused by other
filesystems which may have similar issue.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/