From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41134 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OF63M-0004iL-8b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:44:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OF63H-0005gU-10
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:44:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31085)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OF63G-0005gK-6j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:44:42 -0400
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:44:33 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/6] json-lexer: Handle missing escapes
Message-ID: <20100520104433.1be3167c@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BF45BCF.5090300@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1274303733-3700-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<1274303733-3700-3-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4BF45BCF.5090300@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:44:47 -0500
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:

> On 05/19/2010 04:15 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > The JSON escape sequence "\/" and "\\" are valid and should be
> > handled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino<lcapitulino@redhat.com>
> >    
> 
> Good catch.

 I think there's another issue in the handling of strings.

 The spec says that valid unescaped chars are in the following range:

    unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10FFFF

 But we do:

    [IN_DQ_STRING] = {
        [1 ... 0xFF] = IN_DQ_STRING,
        ['\\'] = IN_DQ_STRING_ESCAPE,
        ['"'] = IN_DONE_STRING,
    },

 Shouldn't we cover 0x20 .. 0xFF instead?