Re: [PATCH 8/6] receive-pack: Send internal errors over side-band #2
- From
Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
- Date
- Feb 10, 2010, 17:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100210171708.GF2747@spearce.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4B725CB1.1080908@viscovery.net>
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> Shawn O. Pearce schrieb:
> > +static void rp_error(const char *err, ...) __attribute__((format (printf, 1, 2)));
> > +static void rp_warning(const char *err, ...) __attribute__((format (printf, 1, 2)));
> > +
> > +static void report_message(const char *prefix, const char *err, va_list params)
> > +{
> > + int sz = strlen(prefix);
> > + char msg[4096];
> > +
> > + strncpy(msg, prefix, sz);
> > + sz += vsnprintf(msg + sz, sizeof(msg) - (sz + 1), err, params);
> > + msg[sz++] = '\n';
>
> This writes beyond the buffer if it is too small because the return value
> tells how many characters *would* have been written if it were
> sufficiently large, no?Ugh. I don't code C often enough anymore.
Thank you for catching that.
Show 9 quoted lines
> > +static void rp_warning(const char *err, ...) > > ... > > +static void rp_error(const char *err, ...) > > ... > > Looks like we need set_report_routine(). > > Or did you replace only selected error() and warning() calls by rp_error() > and rp_warning()?
As described by others in the thread... I only replaced selected calls. Well, most of them, maybe too many. But I didn't want to expose everything to the client. So I added new functions. Yes, it was painful. I wasn't happy about it. But I also wasn't happy about exposing every message to the client over the side-band channel.
-- Shawn.