----- "Daniel Veillard" <veillard(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:12:39PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> + if ((size_t)st.st_size != st.st_size) {
shouldn't we chaeck against SECRET_MAX_XML_FILE instead ?
No, this code reads
the secret value, not the XML, and there's little reason to impose an arbitrary limit
on the size. SECRET_MAX_XML_FILE is a left-over from an earlier version, the attached
updated patch removes the definition.
Mirek