Re: [hackers] Re: [dwm][PATCH v3] manage: For isfloating/oldstate check/set, ensure trans client actually exists

2022-03-18 Thread Miles Alan
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, at 6:19 PM, Chris Down wrote: > Hey folks, > > This patch causes a regression for GPG's default pinentry. Previously the > window floats as it is supposed to, but now it doesn't float at all. > > To reproduce, you can clear your agent credentials with `gpg-connect-agent >

Re: [hackers] Re: [dwm][PATCH v3] manage: For isfloating/oldstate check/set, ensure trans client actually exists

2022-03-18 Thread Chris Down
Hey folks, This patch causes a regression for GPG's default pinentry. Previously the window floats as it is supposed to, but now it doesn't float at all. To reproduce, you can clear your agent credentials with `gpg-connect-agent <<< RELOADAGENT`, and then request decryption. Attached are

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] base64_digits: reduce scope, implicit zero, +1 size

2022-03-18 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:03:34PM +0600, NRK wrote: > the array is not accessed outside of base64dec() so it makes sense to > limit it's scope to the related function. the static-storage duration of > the array is kept intact. > > this also removes unnecessary explicit zeroing from the start and

[hackers] [st] base64_digits: reduce scope, implicit zero, +1 size || NRK

2022-03-18 Thread git
commit ef0551932fb162f907b40185d2f48c3b497708ee Author: NRK AuthorDate: Fri Mar 18 17:03:34 2022 +0600 Commit: Hiltjo Posthuma CommitDate: Fri Mar 18 12:20:27 2022 +0100 base64_digits: reduce scope, implicit zero, +1 size the array is not accessed outside of base64dec() so

[hackers] [st] avoid potential UB when using isprint() || NRK

2022-03-18 Thread git
commit af3bb68add1c40d19d0dee382009e21b0870a38f Author: NRK AuthorDate: Fri Mar 18 16:20:54 2022 +0600 Commit: Hiltjo Posthuma CommitDate: Fri Mar 18 12:11:27 2022 +0100 avoid potential UB when using isprint() all the ctype.h functions' argument must be representable as an

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] rm unnecessary explicit zeroing

2022-03-18 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:11:27PM +0600, NRK wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > > Uh, I didn't realize about it, I just saw that having 255 entries was > > wrong ^^!!!. > > I think the best approach is to split the commit in two and

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] rm unnecessary explicit zeroing

2022-03-18 Thread NRK
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > Uh, I didn't realize about it, I just saw that having 255 entries was > wrong ^^!!!. > I think the best approach is to split the commit in two and evaluate/review > them isolated; one commit to fix the size, and