This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck: Fix parsing of file names containing colons


On 10/25/2017 10:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 25 09:38, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/25/2017 8:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 25 14:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Ken,

On Oct 25 07:23, Ken Brown wrote:
Up to now the function winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc:base skips past
colons when parsing file names.  As a result, a line like

    foo foo-1:2.3-4.tar.bz2 1

in /etc/setup/installed.db would cause 'cygcheck -cd foo' to report 4
as the installed version of foo insted of 1:2.3-4.  This is not an
issue now, but it will become an issue when version numbers are
allowed to contain epochs.
---
   winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc | 2 +-
   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc b/winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc
index 320d69fab..3922b18f8 100644
--- a/winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc
+++ b/winsup/utils/dump_setup.cc
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ base (const char *s)
     const char *rv = s;
     while (*s)
       {
-      if ((*s == '/' || *s == ':' || *s == '\\') && s[1])
+      if ((*s == '/' || *s == '\\') && s[1])

I think this is a simplified way to test for the colon in paths like
C:/foo/bar.  Nothing else makes sense in this context.

I'm not sure how much we care, but maybe we shoulkd fix the test to
ignore the colon only if it's the second character in the incoming
string?

Not "ignore", but "use as a delimiter" only as 2nd char in the input.

I'm not sure the distinction matters in this case, since the function is
just trying to get the base name.  Anyway, how's the attached?

Fine, thanks.

But now that you mention it... why does parse_filename() call base() at
all?  The filenames in installed.db are just basenames anyway.  Does
that cover an older DB format we don't support anymore, perhaps?

It looks like parse_filename is more-or-less copied from the function with the same name in the setup sources (in filemanip.cc). In that case there might be a good reason to call base; I'll have to look more closely.

I just wonder now if we should simply remove base() and the call to it.

Either way, you're right, the colon check is just useless, so your first
patch was entirely sufficient.

What do you think?  Stick to your patch or remove base()?

I vote for removing base.  The attached patch does this.

Ken

Attachment: 0001-winsup-utils-dump_setup.cc-Remove-the-function-base.patch
Description: Text document


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]