[PATCH] cygwin_rexec() returns pointer to deallocated memory

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Mon May 26 16:35:00 GMT 2014

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:27:10PM +0100, David Stacey wrote:
>On 26/05/14 14:36, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> I believe the comment refers to if "static" is the right answer to the
>> problem. Is there a need to handle concurrent calls?
>I can't really comment on that. As the code stands, neither of the two 
>functions that we are discussing are reentrant. As long as the author 
>and the user(s) of the routines are both aware of that then it isn't a 
>I was just trying to fix a coding error that was picked up by Coverity 
>Scan; it wasn't my intention to question the design.

But that is the usual problem with Coverity.  Making the simple, obvious
fix to correct a Coverity warning isn't necessarily the right way to
deal with the issue.

In this case, the linux man page says:

     Multithreading (see pthreads(7))
	 The rexec() and rexec_af() functions are not thread-safe.

so static is appropriate.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list