linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] Ext4 Encoding and Case-insensitive 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]

Date:   Sun, 9 Dec 2018 13:05:27 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     krisman@...labora.com
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel@...labora.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, sfrench@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] Ext4 Encoding and Case-insensitive support

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:53 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
<krisman@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> As Ted mentioned the SMB case, in my understanding, we might have more
> users for in-kernel ut8 normalization/casefold comparison functions than
> just ext4 in the future.

Crossed emails.

See my note about how there really is not a single case-folding
library. It's simply not physically possible, because there are so
many different ideas about what case-folding actually means.

That's still true even if "everything is utf-8", sadly.

So how do you handle locale issues and things like "we have ten
different tables for utf-8 comparisons, and that's _ignoring_ the
issue of whether we combine or decompose characters"?

And there's no way you can use the existing nls interfaces for
upper/lower case, for example, since they are all limited to 256-byte
tables and direct accesses to said tables, afaik.

And if that is where the extensions were, and that is why you changed
other filesystems, this all matters.

My *guess* is that what you really want is not really about unicode at
all, but specifically about just the NTFS rules. Which, yes, might
find generic sharing interest between cifs/ext4/etc, but my gut feel
is that they'd be specifically about some NTFS interoperability
library.

Because even then I think you might have issues like "NTFS-5.1" vs
"NTFS-4.0" etc.

Maybe you don't care, and you're picking just *one* version. And I
haven't seen the code.

Basically, I would not be surprised if the sanest model is simply to
make a "ntfs" library. Because I'm really fairly sure that OS X rules
are very different indeed, even if it too is "unicode".

                 Linus