On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:26:33PM +0900, Gaspar Sinai wrote:
> > I just browsed through RFC-3010 and I found one thing that
> > bothers me and it has not been discussed yet (I think).
> >
> > RFC says:
> > > The NFS version 4 protocol does not mandate the use
> > > of a particular normalization form at this time.
> >
> > How do we mount something that contains a precomposed
> > character like:
> >
> > U+00E1 (Composed of U+0061 and U+0301)
> >
> > If the U+0061 U+0301 is used and our server is assumimg U+00E1,
> > can a malicious hacker set up another NFS server that has
> > U+0061 and U+0301 to mount his NFS volume? I could even
> > imagine very tricky combinations with Vietnamese text
> > but that would be another question...
> >
> > Forgive my ignorance if this was discuseed - I did not see it
> > in the archives.
>
> One thing that's bound to be lost in the transition to UTF-8 filenames:
> the ability to reference any file on the filesystem with a pure CLI.
> If I see a file with a pi symbol in it, I simply can't type that; I have
> to copy and paste it or wildcard it. If I have a filename with all
> Kanji, I can only use wildcards.
>
> A normalization form would help a lot, though. It'd guarantee that in
> all cases where I *do* know how to enter a character in a filename,
> I can always manipulate the file. (If I see "cár", I'd be able to "cat
> cár" and see it, reliably.)
>
> I don't know who would actually normalize filenames, though--a shell
> can't just normalize all args (not all args are filenames) and doing it
> in all tools would be unreliable.
>
> A mandatory normalization form would also eliminate visibly duplicate
> filenames. Of course, it can't be enforced, but tools that escape
> filenames for output could change unnormalized text to \u/\U.
>
> I don't quite understand the scenario you're trying to describe, though.
What I was thinking is this:
NFS server may export something that is meant to be the
same but in fact, because of lack of mandatory normalization,
it is different what the client tries to mount. Is it possible
for someone to use the same machine and export a different
volume with the same name as the client expects?
It may be a different question but can the machine name
be played with? Can this have an affect to the name of the
machine itself or only directories and filenames?
Thank you,
gaspar
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
