Re: [PATCH][BZ 19084] Make sure _nl_value_type_LC_<category> arrays have correct size.

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>]

11.04.2016 22:02 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2016 21:35, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> > [...]
> > A legal notice: I have not (yet!) signed any copyright assignment with
> > FSF but such a short update is not considered as legally significant [1]
> > so does not need any assignment. Also, if in doubt, here I state that
> > I will not complain if you (or any other person) commit, reject, change,
> > or do anything you find appropriate with this change.
>
> ok, for this less-than-one-line change, it's OK. but for your other
> patches (abmon stuff), we'll need CLA papers in place.

OK, it's on the top of my TODO list.

> > By the way, do you think that after this patch you can stop skipping
> > the array size test for LC_TYPE? I wrote:
> >
> > > A similar problem is in LC_CTYPE category, it ends with a subarray of
> > > _NL_CTYPE_EXTRA_MAP_1,..,_NL_CTYPE_EXTRA_MAP_14. Probably this is
> > > the reason why the size of this category is not checked in loadlocale.c.
> > [2]
> >
> > Unless I'm wrong it may happen that a special case test for LC_CTYPE [3]
> > will no longer be necessary. I have no patch for this but the change would
> > be trivial, would you consider providing it yourself?
>
> it does seem like we should be able to drop that test. i'll put together
> a patch for it once it passes tests.
>
> btw, this code comes from this bug report:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=356
> and the analysis there seems to match your own.
> -mike

That's great. A short question is: is _NL_CTYPE_EXTRA_MAP_<n> an open array
of unknown and unlimited size or is it of unknown size but never more than
14 elements (and if this limit ever changes in future it will be reflected
in _NL_NUM_LC_CTYPE)?  In the former case the idea will work, in the latter
we should leave a special case which omits verifying the size of LC_CTYPE.

Regards,

Rafal