AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080414160100.21e29f13@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<rendell.fong@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E09624A89@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:01:28 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Rendell Fong" <rendell.fong@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: please review 28800
Message-ID: <20080414160128.5af2d293@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E09624A89@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E096B1BD1@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E09624A89@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:34:41 -0700 "Rendell Fong"
<rendell.fong@onstor.com> wrote:

> ... //depot/dev/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_audit.c#11 edit
> 
> Line 2078:  Why delete (p++)?  Doesn't p need to increment to check
> each char in location string?

The idea was that, in my estimation, the checking of each component to
see if it's individually too long was silly overkill, because I suspect
the individual component max is the same as the overall path max.  It
was checking the length of each component, and that was passing, but
having 100 directories deep was blowing up something below it.

So instead I changed it to check the overall path-max, which it
wasn't doing, and to check and make sure it didn't have more than 25
(arbitrary) directory components, which would be excessive in my mind.

> ... //depot/dev/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_vol.c#51 edit
> 
> Lines 4437-4448: 
>   What's the initial value of p and count?  
>   Doesn't p need to increment to check each char in location string?

Same as above, only I fixed the uninitialized variables bug.
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Gardner 
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:57 PM
> To: Rendell Fong
> Subject: FW: please review 28800
> 
>  
> Rendell,
> 
> Can you please do this review.
> Thanks.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp 
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:52 PM
> To: Tim Gardner
> Subject: please review 28800
> 
> Change 28800 by andys@ripper on 2008/04/11 15:59:26 *pending*
> 
>         TED00023327 - Bus error audit export command with long path
> name 
>         Egregiously long path name or number of directory components
>         not being checked for in argument parsing.
>         
>         reviewed by
> 
> Affected files ...
> 
> ... //depot/dev/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_audit.c#11 edit
> ... //depot/dev/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_vol.c#51 edit
> 
