Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:53:36 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: serious problem with cygwin and winsock?
Message-ID: <20010822235336.B17930@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010821221717 DOT A27371 AT redhat DOT com> <20010822090825 DOT H17561 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010822141628 DOT A3643 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010822141628.A3643@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:16:28PM -0400

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:08:25AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:17:17PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I've been going crazy this last week trying to figure out a problem
> >> with cygwin and rshd.  It is one of those problems that disappear if
> >> you run strace or single step in gdb.
> >> 
> >> What happens is that rshd sometimes ends up passing a 0 as the first
> >> argument to execle when it is supposed to be something like:
> >> 
> >> "bash", "-c", "ls", 0
> >> 
> >> or whatever.  In my scenario the "bash" is sometimes NULL.
> >> 
> >> One thing I noticed is that rshd uses the structure returned by getpwnam
> >> after calling endpwent.  Anyone know if that is a valid thing to do?
> >> After calling endpwent, rshd uses the pw_shell part of the structure.
> >
> >It's valid. endpwent() isn't defined to destroy some allocated
> >datastructure. However, the latest developer snapshots could
> >behave that way if /etc/passwd has changed in the meantime. :-(
> >The problem is that the getpwXXX functions use the genuine
> >datastructures allocated by read_etc_passwd() instead of copying
> >the result into a save static buffer.  Two solutions:
> >
> >- Revert the `recognize changes to /etc/passwd (/etc/group)' patch.
> >
> >- Let all getpwXXX()/getgrXXX() functions copy their stuff into
> >  a local static buffer. It could even be exactly one buffer per
> >  file since SUSv2 states:
> >  
> >    "The return value may point to a static area which
> >     is overwritten by a subsequent call to getpwent(),
> >     getpwnam() or getpwuid()."
> 
> I don't want to revert your change or implement a static buffer right
> now.
> 
> I don't see any reason to reread the passwd file on a call to endpwent,
> though.  Is there any reason to do this?  Would liminating the
> 
>   if (passwd_state  <= initializing)
>     read_etc_passwd ();
> 
> "solve" any potential problem like this?

I removed the above call from setpwent(), endpwent(), setpassent() and
getpwduid() (which is trash anyway).

Corinna

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