![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> writes: > > > Well, I'm not sure about this. Nearly all patches which get merged pass > > through a public review first, and when you see how many replies you get > > for and 'else' and and 'if' on two different lines, I expect lots of > > spontaneous replies such as "use %S for user-supplied strings". > > I wouldn't rely on that. > > >> A solution would be to normally use "%S" and only use > >> "%s" where "%S" wouldn't work. In that case, we could as well swap "%s" > >> and "%S", though - hardening the existing "%s" and introducing "%S" for > >> those callers that depend on the old behavior. > > I think it's the way to go. > > > I'd rather not change "%s" semantics if we introduce another specifier > > which does exactly what we would expect "%s" to do. > > Both would be equivalent in most cases. It's better to use "%s" for > most cases (either secured or not) and leave "%S" for the bunch of > special cases whose authors better know what are they doing. > > > I will try your proposal to retain the trailing '\n' unescaped. > > I think with "%s" and "%S" this is no longer needed. Yes it will be for compatibility reasons : we for sure will not fix all users of "%s" quickly, so we will have to do our best not to break them. If it was easy to find them all, we could replace "%s" with "%S" everywhere and make "%S" the escaped one. But well, I believe that you convinced me that escaping the "%s" and providing a new "%S" for secure or special usages might be the way to go. I will propose a patch soon. > Krzysztof Halasa thanks, willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-30 06:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||