> Sure, we disagree there. Both me and the xpdf author agree it is a shell > issue, > shells should not accept random commands from random outputs, if they do, > well > it's their fault. > poppler tries to be as resilient as possible to broken pdf and not crash, > shells should do the same and be resilient to broken inputs.
How can a shell protect against it? If bash piped the stdout and stderr of every command through a filter, programs like emacs could never work. If a program wrote a huge amount of garbage and bash or xterm broke and started sending pushing some of the garbage into stdin, then I would agree that it would clearly be a shell bug.My old vt100 clone http://williambader.com/museum/cit101/cit101.html did that on occasion, and the only thing that saved me was the verbosity required in VAX/VMS to do anything useful. The case that I meant is that a program would send codes that made xterm redefine a key. When the user later presses the key at a shell prompt, the shell has no way to know that the text came from a redefined key instead of from a human typing. In the old days, some users ran our programs through a vt100 emulator (or kermit) on a PC running MSDOS, and we had small script that they could run to customize the function keys to generate commands for our systems. William
_______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
