On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 2:53 AM Justin Stitt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:07:57PM GMT, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 2:11 AM Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > Okay, but the patch has an off-by-one error (which has no impact on
> > the behavior as it's close to unrealistic to have the SIZE_MAX array).
> > I prefer that patch can be reconsidered to keep original behaviour,
> > otherwise it might be not so clear why 0 is SIZE_MAX - 1 in _this_
> > case.
>
> Right, it is technically different but still functionally provides the
> "unlimited" behavior.
>
> But, we could do this too:
> int string_unescape(char *src, char *dst, size_t size, unsigned int flags)
> {
> char *out = dst;
> + bool unlimited = !size;
>
> - while (*src && --size) {
> - if (src[0] == '\\' && src[1] != '\0' && size > 1) {
> + while (*src && (unlimited || --size)) {
> + if (src[0] == '\\' && src[1] != '\0' &&
> + (unlimited || size > 1)) {
> src++;
> - size--;
> + size -= !unlimited;
>
> if (flags & UNESCAPE_SPACE &&
> unescape_space(&src, &out))
>
> Really, I am fine with either.
This one is worse, I think.
Let's take time and not hurry up and think more about better approaches.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
