On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 04:44:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:49:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> @@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ struct libmnt_table {
> >> int comms; /* enable/disable comment parsing */
> >> char *comm_intro; /* First comment in file */
> >> char *comm_tail; /* Last comment in file */
> >> + char *buf; /* Memory for reading lines */
> >> + size_t buf_size; /* Size of line-reading buffer */
> >
> > It's overkill to add the buffer to the struct, it's necessary
> > only in mnt_table_parse_next().
>
> It seemed really inefficient to go from a stack buffer to a
> malloc-per-call of mnt_table_parse_next(). I'm fine to write it that
> way, though. What do you think is best here?
I'll try to prepare a patch with new struct libmnt_parser where we can
store another parser specific things like current line number, file
name, etc.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
