This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


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

Re: serious problem with cygwin and winsock?


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@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.


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