linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] fs: unicode: Add utf8 module and a unicode layer

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: <YIlta1Saw7dEBpfs@mit.edu>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 10:12:59 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc:     Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, jaegeuk@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
        ebiggers@...gle.com, drosen@...gle.com, ebiggers@...nel.org,
        yuchao0@...wei.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        andre.almeida@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] fs: unicode: Add utf8 module and a unicode layer

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:06:33AM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > I think the better argument to make is just one of simplicity;
> > separating the Unicode data table from the kernel adds complexity.  It
> > also reduces flexibility, since for use cases where it's actually
> > _preferable_ to have Unicode functionality permanently built-in the
> > kernel, we now force the use of some kind of initial ramdisk to load a
> > module before the root file system (which might require Unicode
> > support) could even be mounted.
> 
> FWIW, embedding FW images to the kernel is also well supported.  Making
> the data trie a firmware doesn't make a ramdisk more of a requirement
> than the module solution, I think.

I don't think we support building firmware directly into the kernel
any more.  We used to, but IIRC, there was the feeling that 99.99% of
the time, firmware modules were not GPL compliant, and so we ripped
out that support.

So my point was with the module support, it's *optional* that it be
compiled as a module, which is convenient for those use cases, such as
for example a mobile handset --- where there is no need for modules
since the hardware doesn't change, and so modules and an initrd is
just unnecessary complexity --- and firmware, which would make an
initial ramdisk mandatory if you wanted to use the casefold feature.

Put another way, the only reason why putting the unicode tables in a
module is to make life easier for desktop distros.  For mobile
handsets, modules are an anti-feature, which is why there was no call
for supporting this initially, given the initial use case for the
casefold feature.

Cheers,

					- Ted