> On July 23, 2013, 11:19 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > staging/kio/src/core/authinfo.cpp, line 324 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111636/diff/1/?file=172718#file172718line324> > > > > For some reason Qt has a Q_FOREVER() macro for this. I admit that I'm > > not sure what it difference it makes compared to while(true) though.... > > Alex Merry wrote: > #define Q_FOREVER for(;;) > > I'm going to go with "none whatsoever". > > David Gil Oliva wrote: > Alex: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean... ?:-/ > > Alex Merry wrote: > dfaure was wondering whether "Q_FOREVER" was any better than "while > (true)"; given "Q_FOREVER" is just a #define for "for(;;)" (which does > exactly the same as "while (true)"), there's no real difference (with any > sane compiler), only an aesthetic one. > > Personally, I think "while (true)" is the best one; it's completely > obvious to anyone who knows C or C++ what it does.
Yeah OK, keep while(true). I still wonder why Qt has Q_FOREVER though :) > On July 23, 2013, 11:19 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > staging/kio/src/core/authinfo.cpp, line 482 > > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111636/diff/1/?file=172718#file172718line482> > > > > The old didn't have such a strict permission checking. Is it intended > > to be strict? Or would it be enough to check if open(ReadOnly) succeeds or > > fails? > > David Gil Oliva wrote: > IMHO, it actually did: > > // Security check!! > if ( sbuff.st_mode != (S_IFREG|S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR) || > sbuff.st_uid != geteuid() ) > return -1; > > .netrc must be 600: nobody except the user has permission to read and > write it. Keep in mind that we're dealing with logins and passwords. > > Explanation: http://www.mavetju.org/unix/netrc.php Ah sorry, missed that. Well, if you tested it, everything's fine. I'm just always a bit wary about QFile::ReadUser vs QFile::ReadOwner, and their different behavior difference on Unix and Windows. But OK, code seems fine. - David ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111636/#review36282 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 21, 2013, 11:41 p.m., David Gil Oliva wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111636/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 21, 2013, 11:41 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Description > ------- > > Port away from kde_file.h in AuthInfo (KIO) > > I have tried not to touch much code, but I finally rewrote some parts to make > them easier to understand. > > > Diffs > ----- > > staging/kio/src/core/authinfo.h d6415b2f2e9ccec7c3e046f569fb44dbbc879d6b > staging/kio/src/core/authinfo.cpp 65ebacf84e989f19f1b896c596a6b24185c67447 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111636/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > It builds. I have tested the part of the code not related to loginMap with a > little program and .netrc sample files, to check whether it correctly parses > the information. > > > Thanks, > > David Gil Oliva > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
