Re: Imminent bugfix release (1.97.1)

["richardvoigt@gmail.com" <richardvoigt@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Duboucher Thomas <thomas@duboucher.eu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Millan a écrit :
>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:43:48PM +0100, Duboucher Thomas wrote:
>>>      Well, the only way to solve that problem would be IMHO to add a limit
>>> to the size of s2, and use this maximum size as an end condition for the
>>> 'for' statement. Any better idea? :)
>>
>> We have a maximum line read size anyway.  If we do this, we might as
>> well make that limit global so that the macro can be shared with
>> this routine.
>>
>
> Sounds good to me. :)
> Any ideas for renaming s1 and s2?

correct_key and attempted_key

But there seems to still be potential for overflow on one of the
strings.  Are both strings in fixed-equal-length buffers?  That should
be clearly documented.


>
> Thomas.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkr4m8EACgkQBV7eXqefhqj9SgCgjHomnoIkzzu5WuTCZQVcB/8t
> cwcAn1EkevCL3PXGlIuhLzFPlER9fXD3
> =okR/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>