Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:13:32 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: UTF-8 practically vs. theoretically in the VFS API |
| |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Those of us who have been involved with the issue have fought > *extremely* hard against DWIM decoders which try to decode the latter > sequences into ".." -- it's incorrect, and a security hazard. The > only acceptable decodings is to throw an error, or use an out-of-band > encoding mechanism to denote "bad bytecode."
Somebody correctly pointed out that you do not need any out-of-band encoding mechanism - the very fact that it's an invalid sequence is in itself a perfectly fine flag. No out-of-band signalling required.
The only thing you should make sure of is to not try to normalize it (that would hide the error). Just keep carrying the bad sequence along, and everybody is happy. Including the filesystem functions that get the "bad" name and match it exactly to what it should be matched against.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |