Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful parser

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...>
Cc: <pavel@...>, <torvalds@...>, <darwish.07@...>, <casey@...>, <akpm@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <viro@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 9:58 am

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:27:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

And there you document \* as well as \? as wildcards for "pathname 
patterns".

And \* is not a replacement for \?. It's quite common to have both ways 
to express "one character" and to express "at least one character", and 
both have their use cases and will get used if available.


That's unrelated to this problem.

You talk about your internal byte representation.

But the problem is that in your code you only match one byte for \?, 
and this might or might not be equal to one character.


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful parser, Ahmed S. Darwish, (Sat Nov 3, 12:43 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful p..., Jakob Oestergaard, (Sat Nov 10, 1:05 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful p..., Adrian Bunk, (Tue Nov 6, 9:58 am)