[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 3/4] util: add unix2dos and dos2unix

[Marc-André Lureau]

----- Mensaje original -----
> Hi,
> 
> On 08/24/2013 02:56 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Mensaje original -----
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 08/24/2013 02:32 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mensaje original -----
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/24/2013 02:17 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +    if (!g_utf8_validate(str, len, NULL)) {
> >>>>>>> +        g_set_error_literal(error, G_CONVERT_ERROR,
> >>>>>>> +                            G_CONVERT_ERROR_ILLEGAL_SEQUENCE,
> >>>>>>> +                            "Invalid byte sequence in conversion
> >>>>>>> input");
> >>>>>>> +        return -1;
> >>>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And once you simply treat this as a regular C-string without worrying
> >>>>>> about multi-byte encodings you can also drop this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, during implementation, I have encountered/produced invalid
> >>>>> utf8 that will break later on in gtk+, so I prefer to validate the
> >>>>> production.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thinking more about this, if we want to do utf-8 validation, it should
> >>>> not
> >>>> be done here, but rather in gtk/channel-main.c, since this code only
> >>>> gets
> >>>> called in certain guest-line-end + direction cases, and if we want to do
> >>>> utf-8 validation we should always do it.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps, although the difference is that here we do parse/modify the
> >>> string,
> >>> so it's important to check we don't produce garbage.
> >>
> >> Right, but since garbage in = garbage out, you're not only checking that
> >> the conversion code did not foo-bar, you're also validating the original
> >> input,
> >> at which point it makes sense to me to always do that even when not doing
> >> conversion.
> >
> > In one case, it's a pass-through, the caller and the destination are
> > responsible for validation.
> >
> > But here, we do parse and modify, so it's necessary to validate.
> >
> > I am not stricly against validating all the time utf8, but I don't think it
> > belongs to the messenger.
> 
> I agree that validation is best left up to the receiver, but in that case we
> should simply
> never verify, as I suggested in the first place. line-ending conversion only
> inserts / removes
> single-byte characters, and since these can never be part of a multi-byte
> character in UTF-8,
> we cannot make the input any more (or less) broken then it was.
> 
> I really think we are doing ourselves a disservice by validating only when
> doing line-ending
> conversion, since we will then likely get difficult to debug bugs, where we
> get non valid utf-8
> in, and end up rejecting it only in some cases (while most receivers will
> likely accept it and
> make the best out of it). Following the receiver should validate (and decide
> whether to outright
> reject, or simply insert some ? chars or some such) reasoning to its logical
> conclusion,
> we should simply never validate.

ok, let's remove it then