From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Dj=E4rv?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug#7517: 24.0.50; repeated crash under Mac OS X Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: <4D1E5987.2000502@swipnet.se> References: <87tyic1uzh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd2dyzfj.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4D1B22A1.6080202@swipnet.se> <4D1B27AF.7010701@swipnet.se> <4D1C6E7D.2040300@swipnet.se> <4D1D0172.8080404@swipnet.se> <4D1DB555.5080002@swipnet.se> <4D1DBD4A.6010303@swipnet.se> <83d3oiaysj.fsf@gnu.org> <4D1DD655.1040809@swipnet.se> <83aajmaxme.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1293834654 877 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2010 22:30:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Uday S. Reddy" , cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , 7517@debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii To: emacs user Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 31 23:30:49 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PYnUl-0000va-Mh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:30:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39265 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYnUl-0007QF-31 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:30:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42575 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PYnUe-0007Ne-Tf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:30:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYnUd-00054n-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:30:40 -0500 Original-Received: from smtprelay-b12.telenor.se ([62.127.194.21]:33228) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PYnUb-00053r-Mz; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:30:38 -0500 Original-Received: from ipb4.telenor.se (ipb4.telenor.se [195.54.127.167]) by smtprelay-b12.telenor.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8167DE93C4; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:30:33 +0100 (CET) X-SENDER-IP: [85.225.45.100] X-LISTENER: [smtp.bredband.net] X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiI3AOvoHU1V4S1kPGdsb2JhbACIPZwADAEBAQE1L74ohUoEjiE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,256,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="1703276589" Original-Received: from c-642de155.25-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO coolsville.localdomain) ([85.225.45.100]) by ipb4.telenor.se with ESMTP; 31 Dec 2010 23:30:32 +0100 Original-Received: from [172.20.199.13] (zeplin [172.20.199.13]) by coolsville.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 683A47FA05A; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:30:32 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101129 Thunderbird/3.1.7 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:134092 Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Emacs should never use unibyte strings for buffer names. > > I don't think we make any effort to prevent this from happening. > > And I'm not completely sure that it would be worth the trouble either: > I suspect that wherever a unibyte buffer-name would cause problem > (mode-line, window title, younameit), some other unibyte string could > appear from elsewhere just as well, so enforcing multibyte buffer-names > wouldn't close the vulnerabilities. If we don't at least ENCODE_UTF_8 should do the right thing. Is the coding for these kind of strings known? If not and we don't enforce encoding in basic interfaces, we must deal with all existing encodings? Jan D.