bug#8401: removing duplication and improving the readlink code

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:00:28 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> CC: 8401@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On 04/01/2011 01:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Isn't much easier and much more elegant to use ssize_t instead of an
> > int for the buffer sizes in both cases?
> 
> That doesn't suffice; the code should not only use ssize_t for
> readlink's returned value, but it should also use size_t for the
> buffer size

Well, let's use that as well, then.

> and it should check that neither type overflows.

Are we really going to consider seriously the case of a link name
overflowing a 64-bit ssize_t data type?  On what platform can this
happen?  I could perhaps be sympathetic to defensive programming in
this area if it were a simple enough test.  But why do we need to
introduce the allocator and careadlinkat modules, and all the nested
function calls needed for them, just to protect a simple code fragment
from overflowing?

> We could modify both copies of Emacs's readlink-using
> code to fix these problems, but when there's duplication like
> this, it's typically better to have just one copy of the code,
> and make any necessary fixes in that copy.

We could refactor the duplicated code into a short function, and use
that.

> On 04/01/2011 01:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If this patch is accepted, the new emacs_readlink function will be a
> > trivial "fail" stub on Windows.
> 
> That would introduce an unnecessary "#ifdef DOS_NT" into the mainline
> code.  We should strive to keep the mainline code free of
> porting #ifdefs when it is easy, as it is in this case.
> The proposed code should run just fine on Windows, using
> the already-existing stubs.  We shouldn't need to clutter up
> up the mainline code with unnecessary Windows-specific
> microoptimizations.

I'm all for that, but if you want to help, please restructure the code
so that neither allocator.h nor careadlinkat are not used on platforms
whose readlink is an always-fail stub.

Sorry, but there are limits to what I can stand in code inelegance and
gratuitous complexity without having my stomach spilled out.  I have
no authority to reject your patch, but I _can_ leave the parts of code
I'm responsible for as unaffected by it as possible.

On top of all that, the functions you introduce use malloc/realloc,
which I think will prevent their callers from being safe for
asynchronous calls triggered by external events (mouse etc.).  The
original code used xmalloc/xrealloc instead, which have Emacs-specific
implementations to avoid that limitation.