On Tuesday 2011-05-24 10:14, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> On 23.05.2011 16:39, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>> Optional arguments make parsing unnecessarily harder - even more so
>>>> than two-args. Right now, rateest even crashes because of it.
>>>>
>>>> static const struct option rateest_opts[] = {
>> [...]
>>>> - {.name = "rateest-bps1", .has_arg = false, .val = OPT_RATEEST_BPS1},
>>>> + {.name = "rateest-bps1", .has_arg = true, .val = OPT_RATEEST_BPS1},
>> [...]
>>>
>>> This appears to be breaking backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Admittedly yes, though the fact that this has remained unseen for so
>> long suggests that the potential user base is very small or not yet
>> existing.
>
>I'm pretty sure this used to work at some point. Let me check history.
>
>> In my time with users in IRC, I notice that they in particular prefer
>> hard stops in parsing over silent upgrades of rules[1], so as to
>> actually become aware of the change upfront. As such, I believe the
>> impact is well justified.
>
>Well, if it really was broken from the beginning I'm fine of course,
>but I don't think that's case.
It works half of the time, and fails half of the time because it can
run - since the beginning - into UB when using argv[optind].
Yes, the fix can be done in many ways, silent update is possible, but
that is undesirable, as are optional arguments in the first place.
--
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
