El Dissabte, 1 de desembre de 2012, a les 15:03:51, William Bader va escriure: > > 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?
No clue i'm not a shell developer ;-) > 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. That's "the old days", we are in 2012 now ;-) But anyway, let's discuss the patch please that is what i asked. Cheers, Albert > William _______________________________________________ poppler mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
