...
> I've double-checked the code for any possible off-by-one/overflow
> errors.
...
Two things caught my eye.
...
> + case bol:
> + case subject:
> + if (*label_len >= SMK_MAXLEN)
> + goto out;
> + subjectstr[(*label_len)++] = data[i];
Why is the '>' necessary? Could it happen that you had incremented past the
point of equality?
If that could not happen, then in my oppinion '>=' is very misleading when '=='
is really what is needed.
...
> + case object:
> + if (*prevstate == blank) {
> + subjectstr[*label_len] = '\0';
> + *label_len = 0;
> + }
I wonder why it is valid to uncritically use the already incremented label_len
here, without checking its value (like is done above).
It seems strangely asymmetrical. I'm not saying it's wrong, because there may
be a subtle reason as to why it's not, but if that's the case then I think that
subtle reason should be documented with a comment.
...
> + case access:
> + if (*prevstate == blank) {
> + objectstr[*label_len] = '\0';
> + *label_len = 0;
> + }
Same applies here.
--
/ jakob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
