4 ms·

Yeah, using serialization format that doesn't even have obvious way of representing every possible Linux filename (nothing mandates filenames to be valid UTF-8,

by dezgeg 2y ago

Yeah, using serialization format that doesn't even have obvious way of representing every possible Linux filename (nothing mandates filenames to be valid UTF-8, only thing they can't contain is NUL and '/') seems bad fit for low-level system services. I can't wait to have apps and services crash and burn left and right due to accidentally (or maliciously) created non-UTF8 filenames in world readable directories.

zzo38computer 2y ago
> Yeah, using serialization format that doesn't even have obvious way of representing every possible Linux filename That is hardly the only problem with such a serialization format, although it is one of them. > I can't wait to have apps and services crash and burn left and right due to accidentally (or maliciously) created non-UTF8 filenames in world readable directories. It is not only accidentally or maliciously. Sometimes it may also be done deliberately because it is a character set other than Unicode, without the intention to be malicious. (A user might also deliberately want to display file names using a different character set, perhaps in order to ensure that all characters can be displayed unambiguously. Of course, this is not necessarily what everyone intends, but some people will.)