On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:06:44AM +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
> VMware uses a mix of percent-, pipe- and base64-encoding in
> different combinations in different places.
>
> Add a testcase for this.
> ---
> src/esx/README | 25 ++++
> src/esx/esx_driver.c | 72 ++++++-----
> src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c | 42 ++++++-
> src/esx/esx_util.c | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> src/esx/esx_util.h | 18 +++
> src/esx/esx_vi.c | 6 +
> src/esx/esx_vmx.c | 88 +++++---------
> tests/esxutilstest.c | 51 ++++++++
> tests/xml2vmxdata/xml2vmx-annotation.vmx | 2 +-
> 9 files changed, 405 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
That sounds vaguely familiar, I think I reviewed such a patch last
month, right ?
[...]
>
> - virBufferURIEncodeString(&buffer, def->name);
> + escapedName = esxUtil_EscapeDatastoreItem(def->name);
> +
okay, we really need to make sure the escaping is XML compatible
though
> @@ -621,3 +622,200 @@ esxUtil_ReformatUuid(const char *input, char *output)
[...]
> +char *
> +esxUtil_EscapeDatastoreItem(const char *string)
> +{
> + char *replaced = strdup(string);
> + char *escaped1;
> + char *escaped2 = NULL;
> +
> + if (replaced == NULL) {
> + virReportOOMError();
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + esxUtil_ReplaceSpecialWindowsPathChars(replaced);
> +
> + escaped1 = esxUtil_EscapeHexPercent(replaced);
> +
> + if (escaped1 == NULL) {
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + escaped2 = esxUtil_EscapeBase64(escaped1);
> +
Okay none of those may lead to a problem for XML ...
[...]
> --- a/tests/esxutilstest.c
> +++ b/tests/esxutilstest.c
> @@ -227,6 +227,56 @@ testConvertDateTimeToCalendarTime(const void *data ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>
>
>
> +struct testDatastoreItem {
> + const char *string;
> + const char *escaped;
> +};
> +
> +static struct testDatastoreItem datastoreItems[] = {
> + { "normal", "normal" },
> + { "AÃ1Ã2Ã3Ã4#5~6!7Â8/9%Z",
> + "A+w6Q-1+w7Y-2+w7w-3+w58-4+Iw-5+fg-6+IQ-7+wqc-8+JQ-2f9+JQ-25Z" },
> + { "Z~6!7Â8/9%0#1\"2'3`4&A",
> + "Z+fg-6+IQ-7+wqc-8+JQ-2f9+JQ-250+Iw-1_2'3+YA-4+Jg-A" },
> + { "ææè", "+5qiZ5rqW6Kqe" },
> + { "!\"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?",
> + "+IQ-_+IyQl-25+Jg-'()_+Kw-,-.+JQ-2f0123456789_+Ow-_+PQ-__" },
> + { "A Z[\\]^_B", "A Z+WyU-5c+XV4-_B" },
> + { "A`B@{|}~DEL", "A+YA-B+QHs-_+fX4-DEL" },
> + { "hÃÃÃÃÃÃH", "h+w4DDgcOCw4PDhMOF-H" },
> + { "AìZ", "A+7L+A-Z" },
> + { "!ìA", "+Iey,gA-A" },
> + { "~~~", "+fn5+" },
> + { "~~~A", "+fn5+-A" },
> + { "K%U/H\\Z", "K+JQ-25U+JQ-2fH+JQ-5cZ" },
> +};
Ouch :-)
One question for the C purists. How do we know how characters outside of
the ASCII range may be interpreted by a compiler ? The mail as received is
made of one mime part, not multipart, it's defined as
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
so my mail reader probably assumes that this is utf8 characters, carried
as a base64 encoded chunk of ASCII. Since my terminal is displaying
in UTF-8 I apparently see your patch as it's expected, but as soon
as it's saved on disk, most Unix/Linux tools will interpret those
character using the locale of the user, i.e. if I were to compile this
in a terminal using a non-UTF-8 locale, the compiler may very well
interpret this slightly differently, okay this is data so maybe it's
just bytes being copied without risk, but I'm still a bit worried there.
I like the idea of testing this API seriously, but at the C level
shouldn't we encode those in an ASCII way to be sure ?
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list