On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 06/20/2017 11:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but I reraise my objection and veto worthless cpu cycles.
>
> For posterity, can I get a succinct description of your technical
> justification for this
On 06/20/2017 11:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Sorry but I reraise my objection and veto worthless cpu cycles.
Hi Bill,
For posterity, can I get a succinct description of your technical
justification for this veto?
--Jacob
Reverted while the veto is in effect.
On 06/20/2017 11:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Sorry but I reraise my objection and veto worthless cpu cycles.
Yep, but it's public now, which was my goal.
Background for the uninitiated: CVE-2017-7668 is a buffer overrun caused
by Bill's patch in the
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:08 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> But there were only two questionable values for \0, and in this case the
> answer is obvious. Invert the rule to a TOKEN char from the rather dubious
> TOKEN_STOP definition. Solved.
... for trunk, IMO. I don't
Sorry but I reraise my objection and veto worthless cpu cycles.
The correct fix to your concern is to document all expected behavior of the
null but in gen_test_char.c - and in such tests a /* !c && */ notation is
fine.
Due to the way we assemble the code, I'm not convinced it that any compiler