On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Kostas Georgiou
<k.georg...@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:41:53PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>> >>> On 1/15/2009 at 8:56 AM, in message
>> <496efa2a020000ac0003a...@lucius.provo.novell.com>, "Brad Nicholes"
>> <bnicho...@novell.com> wrote:
>> After taking a little closer look at the patch, I think we are OK as
>> far as the recursive call to process_path() is concerned since this
>> case is an error condition and should stop processing rather than
>> continuing in the recursive loop.

indeed, this should work just fine.

>>  The other two concerns are still
>> there however.  I still think that we are off-by-one in the malloc
>> call.  It should be len+1 and I still think that we should limit the
>> malloc to 256 rather than allowing it to be unlimited.
> I agree about the off-by-one

argh, my bad sorry, double dumb since I even considered the case.
len+1 it is and the comment should go, thanks.

> but I am not too worried about a malloc
> limit, from what I can tell it can only get as high as REQUESTLEN.

I agree with Kostas, as I wrote in my initial email I didn't worry
about that because of the REQUESTLEN boundary which is enforced in

as to limiting the path to 256 I actually did that in my first
implementation, but eventually converted to a malloc solution because
I was reminded that "640 KB ought to be enough for everybody" and I
could see no downsides.

> The malloc call needs to be checked for NULL and the comment that
> "The recursive structure doesn't require any memory allocations" is
> false now if malloc replaces the stack allocation.


thanks everybody

This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
Ganglia-developers mailing list

Reply via email to