Re: [PATCH 2/4] winex11: Avoid inefficiency and overflow in remove_startup_notification.

[Vincent Povirk]

It seems like you're doing two unrelated things here? I'd expect the
process of building the string to send and sending it to be
independent.
>  if ((src = strstr( id, "_TIME" ))) update_user_time( atol( src + 5 ));
>
> - pos = snprintf(message, sizeof(message), "remove: ID=");
> - message[pos++] = '"';
> - for (i = 0; id[i] && pos < sizeof(message) - 2; i++)
> - pos = sprintf(message, "remove: ID="");
> - for (i = 0; id[i]; i++)
> {
>     if (id[i] == '"' || id[i] == '\')
> -
>    {
> -
>        if (pos == sizeof(message) - 3) break;
>        message[pos++] = '\\';
> -
>    }
> -
>    if (pos == sizeof(message) - 2) break;
>    message[pos++] = id[i];
> }
>    message[pos++] = '"';
>    message[pos++] = '\0';

Your use of == instead of > or >= in these checks makes me
uncomfortable. Given that a single iteration can increment pos twice,
why can't we have a situation where (pos > sizeof(message) - 3),
inside the if statement?

As for the memset, I didn't examine that as thoroughly, but it's a
good policy to not send uninitialized data over the wire. Still, we
could move the memset outside the loop and know that won't happen.