linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 00/20] EXT4 encoding support

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]

Message-ID: <20180712014210.GD9955@thunk.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:42:10 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
        kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] EXT4 encoding support

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:06:40PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Since not every NLS tables support normalization operations, we limit
> which encodings can be used by an ext4 volume.  Right now, ascii and
> utf8n are supported, utf8n being a new version of the utf8 charset, but
> with normalization support using the SGI patches, which are part of this
> patchset.

Why do we need to have to distinguish between utf8n vs utf8?  Why
can't we just add normalization to existing utf8 character set?  What
would break?

Also, do we *have* to support only encodings that have normalization?
It's pointless w/o case-folding support (which is not in this patch
series), but what would happen if we supported case-folding w/o
normalization?

					- Ted