On 2016-09-07 15:41:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Like I said, I'm familiar with the do {} while (0) construct, but I
> > could swear I ran into an odd case where it caused some sort of
> > problem...
>
> There are several possi
On 2016-09-07 09:10:09 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:26:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Firstly, I'll note that, given the existing macros don't seem to have
> > > caused anyone any grief, the exact macro syntax is largely an academic
> > > consideration. =8^)
>
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:10:09AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Like I said, I'm familiar with the do {} while (0) construct, but I
> could swear I ran into an odd case where it caused some sort of
> problem...
There are several possibilities here. There are probably others, but
I can think of
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 01:26:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Firstly, I'll note that, given the existing macros don't seem to have
> > caused anyone any grief, the exact macro syntax is largely an academic
> > consideration. =8^)
>
> Not really. Code gets modified. So, bugs may appear in
On 2016-09-06 12:44:21 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:39:18PM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote:
> > Quick question, mutt has snprintf.c which implements snprintf and
> > vsnprintf. Now that mutt requires a C99 compiler, is this file (and
> > checks in configure) still needed
On 2016-09-06 10:44:12 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:10:36PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-09-05 19:07:18 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > > Is strfcpy() widely available?
> > >
> > > Ah, no
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:36:12PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:18PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> I need to think about this. I'm nervous about this approach, because
> I'm not convinced all the possible string truncations are of sufficient
> severity to warrant
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:39:18PM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote:
> Quick question, mutt has snprintf.c which implements snprintf and
> vsnprintf. Now that mutt requires a C99 compiler, is this file (and
> checks in configure) still needed?
Probably not. I'm not really in a hurry to rip it out, thou
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:18PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> The abort on failure is annoying, but better than a potential security
> hole caused by silently truncating sensitive data, and the abort
> mostly shouldn't ever happen.
I need to think about this. I'm nervous about this approach, be
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 07:07:18PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Is strfcpy() widely available?
>
> Ah, now I see that strfcpy() is a Mutt-specific macro that intends to
> make strncpy() safer. I was actually thinking of strlcpy()
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:10:36PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-05 19:07:18 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > Is strfcpy() widely available?
> >
> > Ah, now I see that strfcpy() is a Mutt-specific macro that intends t
On 2016-09-05 19:07:18 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Is strfcpy() widely available?
>
> Ah, now I see that strfcpy() is a Mutt-specific macro that intends to
> make strncpy() safer. I was actually thinking of strlcpy(), which is
>
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:02:33PM -0700, David Champion wrote:
> To be clear, I'm totally fine with Kevin's suggested change, and will
> make it. I just don't want acceptance of a single patch to depend on an
> open-ended discussion about mutt's preferred style or the broader issues
> of C string
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Is strfcpy() widely available?
Ah, now I see that strfcpy() is a Mutt-specific macro that intends to
make strncpy() safer. I was actually thinking of strlcpy(), which is
equivalent to Mutt's strfcpy(); but it does not matter. ALL
* On 05 Sep 2016, Lorenzo wrote:
Apparently some hook failed to trigger. That was me.
> > Is strfcpy() widely available? For instance, on the machine I'm using
>
> No.
(It's a macro in mutt, so it's fine. I'm speaking to whether it's a
general thing, which seemed to be Derek's question.)
> o
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 07:42:01PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Lastly, I'd recommend using strfcpy instead of strncpy below, just to
> avoid the theoretical possibility where tmp->data is 1024 or bigger.
>
> > diff --git a/init.c b/init.c
> > +/* Format var=value string */
> > +strnc
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:52:58PM -0700, d...@bikeshed.us wrote:
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User David Champion
> # Date 1472604759 25200
> # Tue Aug 30 17:52:39 2016 -0700
> # Node ID be92ca7a461efd7815d5f6b170292798b7c79b3c
> # Parent 788059e7b1182f283c6d21139beaf9dd0d587035
> setenv/u
doc/manual.xml.head | 18
init.c | 113
init.h |3 +
main.c | 15 ++-
system.c|4 +-
5 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
# HG changeset patch
# User Da
18 matches
Mail list logo
