Patrick McHardy wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>> Pablo? I would prefer to get this fixed before 2.6.24, unless >>> there's a better fix I'm going to include my patch to reject >>> pattern lengths of 0. Thanks. >> >> Sorry for the late reply. Why should we accept zero length patterns? >> Would you consider this patch? It keeps consistent the return value of >> all textsearch approaches when a zero length pattern is passed. > > The other ones actually seem to handle it fine, and I think > it should actually behave similar to memcmp or strcmp, so I'd > prefer a patch to handle it properly by always matching. Indeed, KMP supports zero length patterns but I don't know how :). kmp_find() accesses kmp->pattern[0] -which actually points 4 bytes out of the ts_config structure- to compare it with text[i], then if those 4 bytes doesn't match text[i], then returns a matching at position 1. I think that a zero length pattern is a unspecified entry that we should reject. Also, returning some error to tell the user that is passing a zero length pattern -something that is probably what he didn't really want as it happens to Andrei. I can cook a patch for iptables to reject zero length pattern with a nice error message, thus avoiding the EINVAL that will probably go nuts users. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
