>>> On 1/15/2009 at 4:25 PM, in message <ab777dfe0901151525v2f03c952lf3f1323800835...@mail.gmail.com>, "Spike Spiegel" <fsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > readline. >
Since it is limited by REQUESTLEN, I am OK with it. So it sounds like we just need a fix for the off-by-one and the check for NULL on the malloc. Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
