linux-kernel - Re: Duplicate unicode tables in smb/cifs/jfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <25821273-d391-1502-ff8a-07ea7a59c8f3@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:00:30 -0500
From:   Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To:     "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>, sfrench@...ba.org,
        linkinjeon@...nel.org
Cc:     jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Duplicate unicode tables in smb/cifs/jfs

On 6/25/23 9:28AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi All,
>    I just tripped over three sets of duplicated unicode tables and
> wondered if anyone had tried to rationalise them:
> 
>    The pair of:
>     ./fs/smb/server/uniupr.h
>     ./fs/smb/client/cifs_uniupr.h
> 
>     are identical except for formatting.
> 
> ./fs/jfs/jfs_uniupr.c,
>    and I think this is the same with some change in variable name.

 From JFS's point of view, I wonder how relevant any of this code is. 
The Linux port of JFS originally was interested in compatibility with 
OS/2, which had case-insensitive file names. (Case-preserving, if I 
remember correctly, but names would match in a case-insensitive manner.)

I would be surprised if anyone cares about this feature anymore. Without 
a JFS_OS2 flag set in the superblock, none of the case-conversion code 
comes into play.

I assume SMB cares more about this and if Steve has an opinion on how to 
address this, I'd be happy to follow his lead. Probably better than 
ripping function out of JFS that could break some user that I'm not 
aware of.

Shaggy

> 
> (I'm guessing the same thing is implemented in a bunch of
> other places as well in a different way)
> 
> Would it make sense to swing fs/smb/server/uniupr.h up to
> hmm, maybe fs/uniupr.h, remove any of the cifs_ prefixes
> and then use the same include in all 3 places?
> 
> Maybe then later look at using some of the nls code?
> 
> Dave (who just tripped over this stuff)
>