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:	Thu, 17 May 2012 02:37:42 +0200
From:	Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko 
	<phcoder@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] Support non-BMP characters in UDF

On 16.05.2012 22:04, Jan Kara wrote:

> 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.

But it doesn't seem to be appropriate for non-optical media.

>> 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.
> 

Ok, I'll do it. I've noticed another duplication in the UDF code: there
is NLS support and separate UTF-8 support. UTF-8 is support by 2 ways
actually: with -o utf8 and -o iocharset=utf8 which imply different
codepaths. Specific UTF-8 support is probably slightly faster by
avoiding calls and basically doing everything with shifts (or can be
made so with a small patch). Should I perhaps kill one of them? Is
iocharset!=utf8 still of any importance? I haven't seen it in ages.
Perhaps we could keep just the performant UTF-8 support and map
iocharset=utf8 to it and drop iocharset!=utf8? iocharset!=utf8 probably
has no users anyway so keeping it we're likely to keep bugs and code
duplication with no benefit.

-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (295 bytes)