This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result

From: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:50:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
References: <500E8DE4.5060006@redhat.com> <500E9CB0.9050306@cs.ucla.edu> <20120724144829.GI544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <500EBCCE.6040405@cs.ucla.edu> <500EC12E.7010900@redhat.com>

On 07/24/2012 08:37 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The Hurd implementation allocates a new port, so it can fail as well.

That's too bad.  It certainly strengthens the argument for
adding __wur.

Is a new port added even for seteuid?  That is, would it make
sense to add __wur for some of these system calls, but not others?
I'm asking, because on GNU/Linux anyway, EAGAIN is listed as
a possible error for setuid but not for seteuid, which suggests
that it may be useful to apply __wur to setuid but not to seteuid.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Florian Weimer

References:
- [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Florian Weimer
- Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Paul Eggert
- Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Rich Felker
- Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Paul Eggert
- Re: [PATCH] Declare set*id with warn_unused_result
  - From: Florian Weimer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]