Michael McConville wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > If it is not our own fork -- then stay away from this. It is
> > > > pointless putting increasing delta into code which does not run in
> > > > risk environments.
> > >
> > > I thought we had already made that decision based on tedu's
The second reallocarray is unnecessary, but it'll prevent the next forty
auditors from being distracted by malloc(x * sizeof(y)). I'm happy to
leave malloc if people prefer that.
ok?
Index: scanflags.c
===
RCS file:
We need to make a decision if lex is upstream code or our own fork.
If it is not our own fork -- then stay away from this. It is
pointless putting increasing delta into code which does not run in
risk environments.
> The second reallocarray is unnecessary, but it'll prevent the next forty
>
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> We need to make a decision if lex is upstream code or our own fork.
>
> If it is not our own fork -- then stay away from this. It is
> pointless putting increasing delta into code which does not run in
> risk environments.
I thought we had already made that decision based
> > If it is not our own fork -- then stay away from this. It is
> > pointless putting increasing delta into code which does not run in
> > risk environments.
>
> I thought we had already made that decision based on tedu's recent
> commits. Not sure though.
I am not so sure. That fixed
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > If it is not our own fork -- then stay away from this. It is
> > > pointless putting increasing delta into code which does not run in
> > > risk environments.
> >
> > I thought we had already made that decision based on tedu's recent
> > commits. Not sure though.
>
>
