8 Sep
2009
8 Sep
'09
8:26 a.m.
----- "Daniel Veillard" <veillard@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