From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 11719 invoked from network); 15 May 2022 23:19:48 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 May 2022 23:19:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 8017 invoked by uid 550); 15 May 2022 23:19:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 7985 invoked from network); 15 May 2022 23:19:43 -0000 Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 19:19:29 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Alyssa Ross Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220515231929.GP7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20210915221155.3977763-4-hi@alyssa.is> <20210920042140.GT13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220109031819.GO7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <878rvj1tut.fsf@alyssa.is> <20220113174037.GA7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <875yqn1n8g.fsf@alyssa.is> <20220512140835.GJ7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220512180235.5uadgd4iyxtdr37p@eve> <20220512181553.GK7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20220515183840.csmpbq36vd3mmhan@eve> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220515183840.csmpbq36vd3mmhan@eve> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH musl v2 3/3] mntent: fix parsing lines with optional fields On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 06:38:40PM +0000, Alyssa Ross wrote: > Hi Rich, > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 02:15:53PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Alright. It sounds like your patch is pretty much okay as-is except > > for the added " || n[1]==len" in the while condition and removing the > > (now unreachable) return-zero condition at the end. If that sounds > > right and it's okay with you I'm happy to commit your existing patch > > with those changes then make any other improvements myself or review > > further patches from you separately if you like. What do you think? > > Sounds good. Please go ahead and do it yourself —-it would take me a > fair bit of time to put my Musl development setup back together, so if > you're happy to fix up and commit the patch there's no point in me > doing that. One more thing I missed: checking result of sscanf for EOF and ferror(f) does not make sense; that would only make sense if it were fscanf, but the FILE access already happened and was checked earlier. Any objection to me just also removing that from the patch? Rich