[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171008220307.GW15067@dastard>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:03:07 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 07:57:01AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
Filesystems can have those characters on disk without any problems.
Most filesytsems do not null terminate dirents on disk - instead
they keep a dirent length on disk to determine the length of the
entry. "Opaque" means null is a valid character, not an "end of
string" delimiter.
Keep in mind that "/" is an OS dependent special character - other
OS use different directory delimiters so have a different set of
"special characters". This reinforces the fact that it is not the
filesystem's job to police what is stored on disk - the filesysetm
is just a GIGO filename storage mechanism - you get out exactly what
you put in...
> I agree with your main point though; there is no advantage to doing this
> in each individual filesystem.
Yup, especially when we consider filesystems that get mounted and
written by different OS and independent filesystem
implementations....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists