On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 09:40:49AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2026/01/20 04:10, Christian Schulte wrote:
> > Am 20.01.2026 um 00:44 schrieb Crystal Kolipe:
> > > 
> > > So what Stuart suggested, whilst technically not absolutely necessary, is good
> > > programming practice.
> > > 
> > 
> > The manual should be the only source to decide things like this and this
> > only says:
> > 
> > el_set() ... Returns 0 on success, -1 on failure.
> > el_get() ... Returns 0 if successful, -1 otherwise.
> > 
> > The return value of el_set is not checked either. I did not take a
> 
> If the existing unchecked el_set() calls fail it's not a big problem and
> there isn't really anything sftp(1) can do differently.
> 
> If el_get() fails you can't assume anything about the contents of the
> pointer so it's not safe to use it. (Also remember that this code will
> run with editline implementations other than OpenBSD's so being a bit
> careful with this is appropriate).

This is correct, your version of the patch testing the return value of
el_get() before using the value of editor[0] would certainly be the correct
approach.

My explanation was intended to answer Walter's, "I don't follow what you're
telling me here" comment, in a way that future readers of the archives trying
to get a start writing, (decent quality), patches could learn from.