On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 13:16:00 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:05:19PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I had skimmed previously over the gzio.c (stdio based) code and there
> > were several other problematic functions, but doing so now over the new
> > gzlib.c based code it seems to be in a way better shape, although there
> > might still be some other problems, I've not checked thoroughly.
>
> Note that I've not uploaded the most recent versions of zlib to
> experimental yet due to some build system changes I need to refresh the
> packaging for. There are still some incompatibility issues with gzio
> users that are being worked through so it's not gone to unstable quite
> yet.
Ah! Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure upstream might see much
point in fixing the stdio based code, but as I skimmed over the code
anyway, it might be useful, so here's some of the problems I found:
putLong (Does not check for errors from fputc)
getLong (Does not handle restartable IO as it unconditionally calls
get_byte)
check_header (Migth fail in with Z_DATA_ERROR due to interrupted fread
from get_byte)
gz_open (Does not check return code from fprintf, might fail due to
interrupted check_header)
gzread (Migth fail in interrupted getLong or check_header)
gzwrite (Does not store the partial written item count from fwrite)
do_flush (Likewise)
regards,
guillem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
