On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 06:32:58PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote:
> > But I notice that we already handle SIGPIPE explicitly in sign_buffer()
> > for similar reasons. What I was wondering earlier was whether we should
> > teach other functions that call gpg (like verify_signed_buffer()) to
> >
> > This is my first stab at this, in the dumbest/simplest way imaginable. I
> > don't like that there is no code reuse (the run_gpg_verify function is
> > repeated here and in the plumbing command). I would appreciate pointers
> > on what would be the best way to avoid this.
>
> It looks to me
> I know you are just copying this from the one in builtin/verify-tag.c,
> but I find the use of "size" and "len" for two different purposes
> confusing. Those words are synonyms, so how do the variables differ?
>
> Perhaps "payload_size", or "signature_offset" would be a better term for
> "len".
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:51:05PM -0400, Santiago Torres wrote:
> Sorry for the delay with this, I got caught up with coursework.
No problem. The project moves forward as contributor time permits.
> This is my first stab at this, in the dumbest/simplest way imaginable. I
> don't like that
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:39:20PM -0400, santi...@nyu.edu wrote:
> +static int run_gpg_verify(const char *buf, unsigned long size, unsigned
> flags)
> +{
> + struct signature_check sigc;
> + int len;
> + int ret;
> +
> + memset(, 0, sizeof(sigc));
> +
> + len =
Hi Jeff.
Sorry for the delay with this, I got caught up with coursework.
This is my first stab at this, in the dumbest/simplest way imaginable. I
don't like that there is no code reuse (the run_gpg_verify function is
repeated here and in the plumbing command). I would appreciate pointers
on what
From: Santiago Torres
The verify tag function is just a thin wrapper around the verify-tag
command. We can avoid one fork call by doing the verification instide
the tag builtin instead.
Signed-off-by: Santiago Torres
---
builtin/tag.c | 44
7 matches
Mail list logo