| 108 | /* header_token - parse out the next item in a message header */ |
| 109 | |
| 110 | ssize_t header_token(HEADER_TOKEN *token, ssize_t token_len, |
| 111 | ACL_VSTRING *token_buffer, const char **ptr, |
| 112 | const char *user_specials, int user_terminator) |
| 113 | { |
| 114 | ssize_t comment_level; |
| 115 | const unsigned char *cp; |
| 116 | ssize_t len; |
| 117 | int ch; |
| 118 | ssize_t tok_count; |
| 119 | ssize_t n; |
| 120 | |
| 121 | /* |
| 122 | * Initialize. |
| 123 | */ |
| 124 | ACL_VSTRING_RESET(token_buffer); |
| 125 | cp = CU_CHAR_PTR(*ptr); |
| 126 | tok_count = 0; |
| 127 | if (user_specials == 0) |
| 128 | user_specials = LEX_822_SPECIALS; |
| 129 | |
| 130 | /* |
| 131 | * Main parsing loop. |
| 132 | * |
| 133 | * XXX What was the reason to continue parsing when user_terminator is |
| 134 | * specified? Perhaps this was needed at some intermediate stage of |
| 135 | * development? |
| 136 | */ |
| 137 | while ((ch = *cp) != 0 && (user_terminator != 0 || tok_count < token_len)) { |
| 138 | cp++; |
| 139 | |
| 140 | /* |
| 141 | * Skip RFC 822 linear white space. |
| 142 | */ |
| 143 | if (IS_SPACE_TAB_CR_LF(ch)) |
| 144 | continue; |
| 145 | |
| 146 | /* |
| 147 | * Terminator. |
| 148 | */ |
| 149 | if (ch == user_terminator) |
| 150 | break; |
| 151 | |
| 152 | /* |
| 153 | * Skip RFC 822 comment. |
| 154 | */ |
| 155 | if (ch == '(') { |
| 156 | comment_level = 1; |
| 157 | while ((ch = *cp) != 0) { |
| 158 | cp++; |
| 159 | if (ch == '(') { /* comments can nest! */ |
| 160 | comment_level++; |
| 161 | } else if (ch == ')') { |
| 162 | if (--comment_level == 0) |
| 163 | break; |
| 164 | } else if (ch == '\\') { |
| 165 | if ((ch = *cp) == 0) |
| 166 | break; |
| 167 | cp++; |
nothing calls this directly
no test coverage detected
searching dependent graphs…