At Sat, 15 May 2021 11:35:13 -0300, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote in
> Em sex., 14 de mai. de 2021 às 19:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu:
>
> > I wrote:
> > > So the question for us is whether it's worth trying to make pgreadlink
> > > conform to the letter of the POSIX spec in this detail. TBH, I can't
> > > get excited about that, at least not so far as zic's usage is concerned.
> >
> > Hmmm ... on closer inspection, though, it might not be that hard.
> > pgreadlink is already using a fixed-length buffer (with only enough
> > room for MAX_PATH WCHARs) for the input of WideCharToMultiByte. So
> > it could use a fixed-length buffer of say 4 * MAX_PATH bytes for the
> > output, and then transfer just the appropriate amount of data to the
> > caller's buffer.
> >
> Following your directions, maybe something like this will solve?
- DWORD attr;
- HANDLE h;
Why the patch moves the definitions for "attr" and "h"?
+ Assert(path != NULL && buf != NULL);
I don't think it's required. Even if we want to imitate readlink,
they should (maybe) return EFALUT in that case.
+ buf[r] = '\0';
readlink is defined as not appending a terminator. In the first place
the "buf[r] = '\0'" is overrunning the given buffer.
- return 0 <= readlink(name, &c, 1);
+ return 0 <= readlink(name, linkpath, sizeof(linkpath));
According to the discussion, we don't want to modify zic.c at
all. (Maybe forgot to remove?)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center