On 7 Jul 2009, at 12:48, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Steve Harris<steve@email-addr-hidden>
> wrote:
>> But, what about, from now on, all LADSPA labels should be the plugin
>> URI (only restriction is non whitespace, fine)
>
> Nice in theory, though one problem with my preference for using
> filename/label is that it offers more scope for weird programmer
> foibles. The only restriction in the spec may be "no whitespace", but
> I expect hosts may have other peculiarities. I haven't checked but I
> wouldn't be surprised if some of my own code breaks if certain
> characters are found in the label ('"', ':', '<', '>', '&' spring to
> mind as possible candidates). And let's just wait for the first
> security advisory for a buffer overflow in LADSPA plugin label
> handling...
Sure, that would actually be a bug though.
>> Will break any hosts the check to see if the UID is in the legitimate
>> range of course.
>
> ... though that said, people do dumb things with numbers too
> sometimes. I have seen code that tried to store LADSPA plugin IDs in
> floats (!) thus ending up with rounding error for large ID values.
> (Not my code, honest.)
Heh.
- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jul 8 16:15:01 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 08 2009 - 16:15:02 EEST