Eric Rannaud <e...@nanocritical.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> I think that your patch the last round that feeds fd#8 in the >> foreground (i.e. fully trusting that the caller is sensibly giving >> input that produces no output) is already a good place to stop. >> >> Your patch this round that feeds fd#8 in the background, plus the >> attached patch (i.e. not trusting the caller as much and allowing it >> to use commands that outputs something, within reason), would also >> be a good place to stop. >> >> But I am not sure your patch this round alone is a good place to >> stop. It somehow feels halfway either way. > > I agree. If we're coding defensively against the caller, we do have to > include your patch to be effective, you're right. I reckon we likely > don't need to be quite so paranoid, at least until this has more > users.
OK, let's then pick the (not too excessively) defensive version by taking your last one and suggested "while" loop squashed into it. Thanks.
