Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:34:23 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ntsec patch #4: passwd and group
Message-ID: <20021111183423.A10395@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3DCBD52C DOT A1F794FD AT ieee DOT org> <20021108171918 DOT P21920 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3DCBEFF5 DOT 850B999E AT ieee DOT org> <20021111145612 DOT T10395 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3DCFC6BB DOT 570DF472 AT ieee DOT org> <20021111174720 DOT X10395 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3DCFE314 DOT 3B5B45AB AT ieee DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3DCFE314.3B5B45AB@ieee.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:04:20PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > That's not a problem at all.  The non _r calls are not meant to
> > be thread safe so they may use static local buffers legally.
> 
> We have two distinct issues: 1): Thread safe. 2) Having valid pointers 
> after the passwd/grp file is updated, in a single threaded program. 
> The static buffers flunk both, they can only flunk 1). 

But 2 is not an issue.  The appl. called getpwuid once and then the
static buffer contains data.  That's it.  The *next* call copies
other data into the static buffer.  Is there any sense to keep the
static buffer in sync even though the application doesn't call
the function again?  I don't think so.  It's even dangerous.

> > You didn't send patches, just a ChangeLog entry.
> For #1 and #2 I sent patches as attachment (from Netscape). I just looked
> at the web, the patches show up as part of the messages
> For #3 there was always a short patch inside the e-mail.

I didn't get any email in October so I only saw your patch #4.
I thought we would start from the beginning when I return from
vacation.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.