Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:13535 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28086 invoked by uid 1010); 26 Oct 2004 19:57:33 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28024 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2004 19:57:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ctindustries.net) (216.117.147.250) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Oct 2004 19:57:33 -0000 Received: from ctdprimary (dsta-aa203.pivot.net [66.186.171.203]) (authenticated bits=0) by ctindustries.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QIrbs3013294; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:53:38 -0400 Message-ID: <078e01c4bb96$86a0f340$f7dea8c0@cyberware.local> To: "Christian Schneider" Cc: References: <064a01c4bb82$8f9d4d90$f7dea8c0@cyberware.local> <417E929B.2040301@cschneid.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Subject: Re: streams file uri under windows From: rrichards@ctindustries.net ("Rob Richards") After playing around with it some more, is this that check even needed for windows to check for remote host access? What is the different then between doing?: file_get_contents("\\\\remotehost\\share\\file.txt"); file_get_contents("file://\\\\remotehost\\share\\file.txt"); With the current streams code, the first one loads fine, while the 2nd one fails with a "remote host file access not supported" error. By removing the check, the second one loads fine as well. Is there some other reason the remote host access check is done when called using file:// syntax (under windows that is)? Rob From: Christian Schneider > I'm not an export on that piece of code but passing file:// to this > function could cause problems. > You should at least move the path[n+3] != '/' to before the n+4 test and > I think you should also make sure that n+3 is not '\0' as otherwise n+4 > could be beyond the end of the string, no?