On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:31:06 -0700 > Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Richard Wordingham < > > richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:04:42 -0700 > > > Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: > > > > > It's impossible to hit that limit... Ok, it would be impossible > > > > if we increase it to 32. I'll do that. > > > > That'll probably work, but I'm now intrigued. Why have a limit that > > > will never be hit? Are you just catering for HarfBuzz's logic > > > simply going badly wrong in very unusual circumstances? > > > Yes, simply as defense against malicious fonts and how the subsetter's > > glyph-closure routine can be tricked to collect (way) more glyphs than > > shaper can actually reach. > > But if the limit is never hit, then the defence is never used, and so > it may as well not be there. Or is it meant to initimidate > designers of malicious fonts who study Harfbuzz? > The limit is never hit **during shaping**. But our current glyph_closure() can get tricked by malicious fonts without this limit. Hence the limit. -- behdad http://behdad.org/
_______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list HarfBuzz@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz