[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#242258: gnome-panel crashes on invalid .recently-used entry



tags 242258 + fixed-upstream
stop

On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 17:55 +0200, Vincenzo Gervasi wrote:
> Package: gnome-panel
> Version: 2.4.2-4
> Severity: important
> 
> gnome-panel crashes upon finding XML encoding problems in .recently used.
> In particular, I had the following entry (created by OpenOffice.org):
> 
> <RecentItem>
>   <URI>file:///home/gervasi/REFSQ04/Reviews/06%20&%2022%20Rolland.doc</URI>
>   <Mime-Type>application/msword</Mime-Type>
>   <Timestamp>1080897663</Timestamp>
>   <Groups>
>     <Group>OpenOffice.org</Group>
>   </Groups>
> </RecentItem>
> 
> As you can notice, the encoding of the file name "06 & 22 Rolland.doc" was
> incorrect, in that the ampersand was not encoded as it should. However, it
> is not acceptable that the panel crashes (in an endless loop, due to the
> session manager re-launching it every time) just because an application or a
> user has used an unusual file name. XML parsing errors at this stage should
> be harmless -- at the worst, the offending entry should be dropped from
> the recent files menu.
> 
> In my case, the problem was fixed by (manually) rewriting the entry as
> follows:
> 
> <RecentItem>
>   <URI>file:///home/gervasi/REFSQ04/Reviews/06%20&%2022%20Rolland.doc</URI>
>   <Mime-Type>application/msword</Mime-Type>
>   <Timestamp>1080897663</Timestamp>
>   <Groups>
>     <Group>OpenOffice.org</Group>
>   </Groups>
> </RecentItem>
> 
> Notice how & was encoded to &amp; (whereas the previous &%2022 was an
> illegal entity name).
> 
> Thanks for your excellent work,
> -Vincenzo

I have good news Vincenzo! :) This bug has already been found and fixed
upstream, as you can see at
<http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133257>. I am running
gnome-panel 2.5.92 and I haved confirmed that it has been fixed using
your example file.

Thank you for reporting the bug nonetheless!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: