Re: [PATCH] Sanitize filesystem NLS handling

["Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru>]

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@ums.usu.ru> writes:
> 
>> But, anyway, this is a separate issue that my patch doesn't attempt to 
>> correct. The conclusion so far is that we disagree, and that there are 
>> situations where using utf8 iocharset is the least of all evils, so the 
>> warning is not justified enough. Reproducible testcase:
> 
> Again, I don't care about read at all. And why don't you use "utf8"
> option, instead of "iocharset=utf8". "iocharset=utf8" is warned until
> it is fixed. The "utf8" also doesn't work correctly in some case though.

Would it be OK for you if I add the mount-time check for iocharset=utf8 to 
the fat filesystem and silently replace this with the "utf8" option, instead 
of overly actively warning the users? This way, the sysfs option and the 
nls_base.iocharset module parameter will still work as I want.

>>> I'm talking about two filesystems on a system here, not two encoding
>>> on one filesystem.
>> I am also talking about this. Mounting two filesystems with different 
>> iocharsets is insane, because this will result in one of the following outcomes:
>>
>> 1) "ls" will show wrong characters in filenames on one of the filesystems
>> 2) one of the two filesystems will contain wrong on-disk data for filenames, 
>> that, when misinterpreted by mounting with wrong iocharset, results in 
>> seemingly-correct output, but is misunderstood by the properly set up 
>> reference implementation (that's what is likely to happen with jfs in your 
>> example).
> 
> Because you didn't change the locale. And it is your policy, right?

Yes. This is because I have some files with non-ASCII names in my home 
directory. Changing the locale would make these filenames look wrong until I 
change it back.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov