[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150209182043.GF23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:20:43 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: M Farkas-Dyck <strake888@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] linedit, deluser: use POSIX getpwent instead
of getpwent_r
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:05:07PM -0500, M Farkas-Dyck wrote:
> On 07/02/2015, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 03:14:10PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >> >> > the _r functions are for thread-safe
> >> >> > versions of their corresponding legacy functions, but getpwent_r has
> >> >> > inherent global state -- the iterator. Whoever made it just wasn't
> >> >> > thinking. To make a correct interface like this the caller would
> >> >> > need
> >> >> > to have an iterator object to pass to the function, but I can't see
> >> >> > much merit in inventing a new interface for this.
>
> buf may contain arbitrary data, yes? If so we could store the iterator there.
No. On entry the buffer must be assumed to be uninitialized. The
caller could be passing a completely new buffer each time, and even if
not, on the first call the buffer is going to contain junk. The
contract of getpwent_r, at least on glibc and compatible systems,
seems to be that it uses the same iterator as getpwent. But since it
turns out there are multiple incompatible historical functions names
getpwent_r that all behave differently, this proposal has basically
been shelved anyway. Busybox has dropped its use of getpwent_r.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
