On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 06:59:02PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 06:31:40PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:38:28PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > Accept sole escaped asterisks as well as unescaped asterisks if
> > > surrounded by strings. The latter is merely cosmetic, but literal
> > > asterisk will help when translating from iptables where asterisk has no
> > > special meaning.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > src/scanner.l | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/scanner.l b/src/scanner.l
> > > index 99ee83559d2eb..da9bacee23eb5 100644
> > > --- a/src/scanner.l
> > > +++ b/src/scanner.l
> > > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ numberstring ({decstring}|{hexstring})
> > > letter [a-zA-Z]
> > > string ({letter}|[_.])({letter}|{digit}|[/\-_\.])*
> > > quotedstring \"[^"]*\"
> > > -asteriskstring ({string}\*|{string}\\\*)
> > > +asteriskstring ({string}\*|{string}\\\*|\\\*|{string}\*{string})
> >
> > Probably this:
> >
> > {string}\\\*{string})
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > {string}\*{string})
> >
> > ?
> >
> > The escaping makes it probably clear that there is no support for
> > infix wildcard matching?
>
> Ah, you're right. I assumed it wasn't necessary to escape the asterisk
> mid-string, but if we ever added support for infix wildcards (no matter
> how unlikely) we were in real trouble.
Yes, I don't expect mid-string matching in the future, but you never
know, so better reserve this just in case :-)
> BTW: Given how confusing bison-generated error messages are, maybe I
> should introduce "infixasteriskstring" in scanner.l to catch unescaped
> infix asterisks and generate a readable error message from there?
bison syntax error reporting is not great, yes. If you think that
makes it easier for error reporting as a short term way to address the
issue, that's fine with me.
> > This asteriskstring rule is falling under the string rule in bison.
> > This is allowing to use \\\* for log messages too, and elsewhere.
>
> Ah, that's right. Good, bad, ugly? Just a "neutral remark" from you? :)
Just a remark, no issue.
