Re: Is OpenSMTPD worthy of OpenBSD inclusion?

[Joel Rees]

2015/10/07 0:10 "Артур Истомин" <art.is...@yandex.ru>:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 02:20:31AM +0300, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Артур Истомин
<art.is...@yandex.ru>
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 01:07:24PM -0400, STeve Andre' wrote:
> > >> The smtpd code is very good.
> > >
> > > static void
> > > filter_tx_io(struct io *io, int evt)
> > > {
> > >         struct filter_session   *s = io->arg;
> > >         size_t                   len, n;
> > >         char                    *data;
> > >         char                    buf[65535];
> > >
> > >
> > >         switch (evt) {
> > >         case IO_DATAIN:
> > >                 data = iobuf_data(&s->ibuf);
> > >                 len = iobuf_len(&s->ibuf);
> > >                 memmove(buf, data, len);
> > >                 buf[len] = 0;
> > >
> >
> > You just validated all the concerns about the quality of OpenSMTPd and
> > also the need for peer/code reviews. That is not production quality
> > code by any measure.
>
> I mean exactly that. It is sarcasm about "very good code".
>

Well, you know, if I'm supposed to judge an entire project based on a
supposedly unchecked pointer parameter, and a supposedly unchecked length
given to a block move (both occurring in a statically declared function)
I'd still want some sort of a pointer to the file it came from, and a
pointer to the bug report filed for it and any discussion on the mailing
lists that occured concerning the code in question.

Otherwise, I'm judging the reporter more severely than whoever wrote the
code.

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.