Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 15:52:02 -0500
From: Will Dietz <w@...z.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] iconv: fix to=utf32 to behave like utf32be
 (not... ascii?)

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:06:57PM -0500, Will Dietz wrote:
>> Hmm this is more complicated than I originally thought.
>> I'm not sure I understand the current behavior,
>> but am less convinced this is a clear improvement.
>
> Can you explain what you're confused about? It seems ok.
>

Nothing specific, and depending in the perspective this change is
relatively straightforward.
If it seems that way to you and doesn't raise any alarm bells then
it's probably perfectly fine :).

Mostly I couldn't shake the sense I'd gone down this path before and
someone explained there
was a reason to do things this way; this feeling was an itch I
couldn't scratch and so I wanted
to conservatively pass along my doubts until I could convince myself
there were unfounded : ).

If it doesn't ring any bells with you then I probably am remembering
incorrectly or from a different project,
or a combination of both of these :).
The fragment I couldn't shake was that this would break or
significantly bloat re:some uses that compulsively
converted everything to utf32 and expected some particular behavior with stdio.
I want to say it was somehow win32 related but that doesn't make any
sense for musl anyway O:).

Combined with a bit of BOM iconv SNAFU when testing
UTF-32/UTF-32BE/UTF32-LE/etc.,
I didn't want to misrepresent my confidence in this change :).

Especially compared to the other patch, which IMO is both more urgent
and "obviously" an improvement.

I don't know of a specific reason this change is wrong, however, and
in fact AFAICT
it is only more correct.  Sorry for unspecified doubts, it's more that
I couldn't vouch for it 100% O:).

~Will

>> Thoughts/comments appreciated :).
>>
>> ~Will
>>
>> PS: Did we discuss this years ago? I thought so, but can't find it anywhere...
>
> I don't think so. UTF-32 did not exist as a different case from
> UTF-32BE until this year.

Hmm, indeed! Well I don't know what I'm thinking of, then.  Thanks for
taking a look and pointing this out.

>
> Rich

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ