ntsec patch #4: passwd and group

Corinna Vinschen vinschen@redhat.com
Mon Nov 11 09:34:00 GMT 2002

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


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

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list