[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-8597 ] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets

From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2007-02-14 19:36:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #10303
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 08:38:50AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: [ ruby-Bugs-8597 ] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets"
>     on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:24:41 +0900, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> writes:
> 
> |Yes, problem is pack_sockaddr_un() doesn't allow a leading NUL, though
> |Linux allows this (it appears to be a Linux-only extension). Ruby also
> |arbitrarily limits path lengths to UNIX_PATH_MAX-1, instead of
> |UNIX_PATH_MAX.
> 
> Is this OK?  I mean I though sun_path requires NUL termination, so
> that I reserve the last byte for the terminator.  If it's not, I'd
> love to apply your patch.

Since the sockaddr length is passed/returned explicitly in system calls,
I thought it wasn't necessary. I can't find any specification, but
Stevens says it should be NUL terminated, he is probably right.

I noticed there are several other places in socket.c where sun_path is
assumed to be NUL terminated, and to not have a leading NUL - ex,
unixpath() - so this patch is not sufficient.

I will make a new version that makes no change except to specifically
allow a leading NUL, and will check all uses of sun_path to make sure
that leading NULs are treated correctly.

Sam


In This Thread