On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:29:36PM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:18:41 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > > The problem is that the code scanning a common chunk of lines doesn't > > account for the possibility that EOF may occur before a final newline. > > > > This patch fixes the problem in all affected tools in the tree. OK? > > The return value of getc() should be checked against EOF, not -1. > I know this is not a new problem in that code base so if you'd > rather leave that change for a cleanup diff that is OK by me.
I noticed this too, and indeed I'd rather fix those -1s in a separate patch which doesn't change behaviour. It seems these have already been fixed in Got's copy of the code; it will be trivial for me to compare notes and fix them in-tree as well.
