[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: UTF-8 practically vs. theoretically in the VFS API (was: Re: JFS default behavior)
Followup to:  <>
By author: Jamie Lokier <>
In newsgroup:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Which flies in the face of "Be strict in what you generate, be liberal in
> > what you accept". A lot of the functions are _not_ willing to be liberal
> > in what they accept. Which sometimes just makes the problem worse, for no
> > good reason.
> Unicode specifies that a program claiming to read UTF-8 _must_ reject
> malformed UTF-8.
> Ok, we can just ignore Unicode. :)
> But the reason they cite is security: when applications allow
> malformed UTF-8 through, there's plenty of scope for security holes
> due to multiple encodings of "/" and "." and "\0".
> This is a real problem: plenty of those Windows worms that attack web
> servers get in by using multiple-escaped funny characters and
> malformed UTF-8 to get past security checks for ".." and such.

Actually, the kernel is 100% compliant in that respect.

The only byte sequences the kernel interpret:

2E 2E

.. and it correctly rejects (in the sense that it doesn't alias) any
other possible byte stream that could be interpreted as the same
sequences by a naïvely incorrect UTF-8 encoder.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.119 / U:31.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site