[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

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

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: Unexpected pointer behavior with unpack

From: nobu@...
Date: 2006-07-14 16:23:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #8225
Hi,

At Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:36:37 +0900,
Justin Bailey wrote in [ruby-core:08223]:
>   puts outer.unpack("P4").first.unpack("P3") # ArgumentError - no associated
> pointer
> 
> I get an error. Now, I think I understand why this happens - pointers have
> to be associated with variables. It would be dangerous to unpack to treat
> any string as a pointer. However, I do think the above is surprising
> behavior. It took me awhile to understand why my nested structures didn't
> seem to work.

Since the result string will be tainted, so the original string
also will be tainted implicitly.  But now I about to think it
should be tainted too.


Index: pack.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ruby/src/ruby/pack.c,v
retrieving revision 1.84
diff -p -U 2 -r1.84 pack.c
--- pack.c	9 Jun 2006 21:20:12 -0000	1.84
+++ pack.c	14 Jul 2006 16:16:48 -0000
@@ -1875,6 +1875,10 @@ pack_unpack(VALUE str, VALUE fmt)
 		    while (p < pend) {
 			if (TYPE(*p) == T_STRING && RSTRING(*p)->ptr == t) {
-			    if (len > RSTRING(*p)->len) {
-				len = RSTRING(*p)->len;
+			    rb_obj_taint(*p);
+			    if (len < RSTRING(*p)->len) {
+				tmp = rb_tainted_str_new(t, len);
+			    }
+			    else {
+				tmp = *p;
 			    }
 			    break;
@@ -1885,5 +1889,4 @@ pack_unpack(VALUE str, VALUE fmt)
 			rb_raise(rb_eArgError, "non associated pointer");
 		    }
-		    tmp = rb_tainted_str_new(t, len);
 		}
 		else {


-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread