[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171006145701.GB18373@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 07:57:01 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: hard-ban creating files with control characters in
the name
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:09:42PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 12:16:19PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > This kind of restriction sounds more like a permanent feature of the
> > filesystem--something you'd set at mkfs time.
> >
> > We already have filesystems with these kinds of restrictions, don't we?
>
> In general, no. Filename storage typically defined in the
> filesystem on-disk formats as an opaque string of bytes - the
> filesystem has no business parsing them to determine validity of the
> bytes. Think encrypted filenames and the like - control characters
> in the on-disk format are most definitely necessary and therefore
> must be legal.
Umm. But filenames still can't have / or \0 in them, so your encryption
already has to avoid at least two special characters.
I agree with your main point though; there is no advantage to doing this
in each individual filesystem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists