Re: [Patch] Encode invalid chars in /proc/registry entries

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Nov 16 20:25, Christian Franke wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Thanks for this patch.  Apart from the missing ChangeLog I'm inclined
>> to apply it to the upcoming 1.5.25 release, but I don't like to have it
>> in HEAD as is.
>
> Thanks, I would appreciate to have this issue fixed in the bugfix release.
>
> Here is a new version of the patch and a ChangeLog.
>
> The names "." and ".." are now also encoded. Theses are also valid as 
> Key/Value Names and ".." may result in infinite recursion.

Thanks, I've tested it on my machine and I've applied the patch to the
cr-0x5f1 branch.

>> So, for HEAD I'd like to ask you to allow arbitrary path lengths in your
>> code.  Personally I could live with restricting registry paths to
>> PATH_MAX as well.
>
> Agree. Probably Cygwin should never descend paths that exceed PATH_MAX, as 
> an application using PATH_MAX may have no buffer overflow check.

I agree.

>> While you're digging in registry code anyway... would you be interested
>> to convert the entire registry code to wide char and long path names?
>> I'd be glad for any help.
>
> I will have a look at it, but be patient. Is current HEAD a reasonable 
> starting point or is there a better (more stable) snapshot?

Usually HEAD is the *only* valid starting point.


Thanks again for the patch,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat