On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:41:53PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >>> On 1/15/2009 at 8:56 AM, in message > <496efa2a020000ac0003a...@lucius.provo.novell.com>, "Brad Nicholes" > <bnicho...@novell.com> wrote: > > After taking a little closer look at the patch, I think we are OK as > far as the recursive call to process_path() is concerned since this > case is an error condition and should stop processing rather than > continuing in the recursive loop. The other two concerns are still > there however. I still think that we are off-by-one in the malloc > call. It should be len+1 and I still think that we should limit the > malloc to 256 rather than allowing it to be unlimited.
I agree about the off-by-one but I am not too worried about a malloc limit, from what I can tell it can only get as high as REQUESTLEN. The malloc call needs to be checked for NULL and the comment that "The recursive structure doesn't require any memory allocations" is false now if malloc replaces the stack allocation. Kostas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
