----- "Daniel Veillard" <veill...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:12:39PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > + if ((size_t)st.st_size != st.st_size) {
>
> shouldn't we chaeck against SECRET_MAX_XML_FILE instead ?
No, this code reads the secret value, not the XML, and there's little reason to
impose an arbitrary limit on the size. SECRET_MAX_XML_FILE is a left-over from
an earlier version, the attached updated patch removes the definition.
Mirek
0001-Secret-manipulation-step-7-Local-driver.patch
Description: application/mbox
-- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
