linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/4] exfat: Simplify exfat_utf8_d

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:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 08:13:45 +0000
From:   "Kohada.Tetsuhiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp" 
        <Kohada.Tetsuhiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp>
To:     'Pali Rohár' <pali@...nel.org>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC:     "'linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'namjae.jeon@...sung.com'" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        "'sj1557.seo@...sung.com'" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] exfat: Simplify exfat_utf8_d_hash() for code points
 above U+FFFF

> On Wednesday 08 April 2020 03:59:06 Kohada.Tetsuhiro@...MitsubishiElectric.co.jp wrote:
> > > So partial_name_hash() like I used it in this patch series is enough?
> >
> > I think partial_name_hash() is enough for 8/16/21bit characters.
> 
> Great!
> 
> Al, could you please take this patch series?

I think it's good.


> > Another point about the discrimination of 21bit characters:
> > I think that checking in exfat_toupper () can be more simplified.
> >
> >  ex: return a < PLANE_SIZE && sbi->vol_utbl[a] ? sbi->vol_utbl[a] : a;
> 
> I was thinking about it, but it needs more refactoring. Currently
> exfat_toupper() is used on other places for UTF-16 (u16 array) and therefore it cannot be extended to take more then 16
> bit value.

I’m also a little worried that exfat_toupper() is designed for only utf16.
Currently, it is converting from utf8 to utf32 in some places, and from utf8 to utf16 in others.
Another way would be to unify to utf16.

> But I agree that this is another step which can be improved.

Yes.