From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Debian-exim@smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.185.217])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9QLmefv028142
	for <tech@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82])
	by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1)
	id 1PArNm-0006NW-Rx; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3])
	by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1PArNm-0003ek-MY
	for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de)
	by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1PArNm-0001H0-L3
	for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <schwarze@usta.de>)
	id 1PArNm-0001Zz-AJ
	for tech@mdocml.bsd.lv; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:48:38 +0200
From: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: implement .so
Message-ID: <20101026214838.GH27536@iris.usta.de>
References: <20101024172914.GH20876@iris.usta.de>
 <20101024173857.GA18657@britannica.bec.de>
 <20101024180019.GI20876@iris.usta.de>
 <20101024181502.GA13039@britannica.bec.de>
 <20101024194129.GJ20876@iris.usta.de>
 <20101024195135.GA1809@britannica.bec.de>
 <20101025215506.GA12557@iris.usta.de>
 <20101025221017.GA6533@britannica.bec.de>
 <20101026175913.GF27536@iris.usta.de>
 <20101026181252.GA4964@britannica.bec.de>
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech
Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101026181252.GA4964@britannica.bec.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Hi Joerg,

Thanks for your quick feedback!

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote on Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 08:12:52PM +0200:

> I would like to a see a warning for -T lint, but I am not sure how that
> could be implemented easily.

I think i know how to put that in, it doesn't seem like any kind of
a problem.  But i'd rather do that after committing the ERROR cleanup
i posted recently, or it will conflict badly.

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:59:13PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>> +roff_so(ROFF_ARGS)
>> +{
>> +	char *name;
>> +
>> +	name = *bufp + pos;
>> +	if ('/' == *name || strstr(name, "../") || strstr(name, "/..")) {
>> +		(*r->msg)(MANDOCERR_SOPATH, r->data, ln, pos, NULL);
>> +		return(ROFF_ERR);
>> +	}

> Not sure I like the double use of strstr.
> What about searching for the rare ".." first?

Admittedly, that would allow to reduce the algorithm order
from O(2N) to O(N), where N is the length of the name of the
included file, so not exactly a large number.

Given that you almost never have more than one .so per file,
i consider readability of the code more important here than
economizing typically about 20 character comparisons.

So, i think i will put in the pdesc refactoring, then .so,
then the ERROR cleanup, then add a warning message.

OK?

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv