"Theo de Raadt" writes:
> No, it is either:
>
> err(1, "unveil %s", path)
>
> or
>
> err(1, "unveil: %s", path)
>
> I remain undecided between those two, i don't particularily like two :: in
> a error message.
Ok splendid. I've regenerated these, this time including dhcpleased and
slaacd since
Florian Obser writes:
> There are 4 or five cases how unveil is called, depending on how
> you count. The permission seems to be always a string literal or NULL.
> The path can be:
>
> 1) a string literal
> 2) a #define
> 3) a variable
> 4) the empty string literal ""
For the archives, I
Ashton Fagg wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 10:17, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > So if the messages were just 'unveil %s: error' or 'unveil: %s: error'
> > I would be thrilled, as this allows users to realize why the program is
> > not working right.
>
> Florian/Theo,
>
> Thanks for the reviews.
>
On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 10:17, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> So if the messages were just 'unveil %s: error' or 'unveil: %s: error'
> I would be thrilled, as this allows users to realize why the program is
> not working right.
Florian/Theo,
Thanks for the reviews.
So it sounds like err(1, "unveil: %s
"Theo de Raadt" writes:
> Florian Obser wrote:
>
>> In this hunk alone you have three out of five and you log them all
>> differently. I think this should be unified as
>> fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", _PATH_RESCONF, "wc");
>> fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", /etc/resolv.conf.tail,
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Florian Obser wrote:
>
> > In this hunk alone you have three out of five and you log them all
> > differently. I think this should be unified as
> > fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", _PATH_RESCONF, "wc");
> > fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", /etc/resolv.conf.tail,
Florian Obser wrote:
> In this hunk alone you have three out of five and you log them all
> differently. I think this should be unified as
> fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", _PATH_RESCONF, "wc");
> fatal("unveil(\"%s\", \"%s\")", /etc/resolv.conf.tail, "r");
>
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 09:00:21PM -0400, Ashton Fagg wrote:
> "Theo de Raadt" writes:
>
> > Showing the symbolic name is not doing anywhere else in the tree.
> >
> > Most likely they should be
> >
> >err(1, "unveil: %s", path);
>
> Per Theo's advice, updated diffs are attached.
"Theo de Raadt" writes:
> Showing the symbolic name is not doing anywhere else in the tree.
>
> Most likely they should be
>
> err(1, "unveil: %s", path);
Per Theo's advice, updated diffs are attached.
diff --git a/sbin/dhclient/dhclient.c b/sbin/dhclient/dhclient.c
index
Thanks for the review - wasn't sure if that was useful. Will
regenerate without the symbolic names.
On Sun, 2 May 2021 at 20:37, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> Showing the symbolic name is not doing anywhere else in the tree.
>
> Most likely they should be
>
>err(1, "unveil: %s", path);
>
Showing the symbolic name is not doing anywhere else in the tree.
Most likely they should be
err(1, "unveil: %s", path);
Ashton Fagg wrote:
> Ashton Fagg writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I saw a discussion on here a while ago about the use of patterns like:
> >
> > if
11 matches
Mail list logo