|
|
The following reply was made to PR bin/38327; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov@xxxxxx>
To: gnats-bugs@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnats-admin@xxxxxxxxxx, netbsd-bugs@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable
[sg]etprogname?
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:53:55 +0200
> | I had nothing agaist err() or getprogname() in NetBSD's libc. I just
> | didn't see any reason to use getprogname() and setprogname() in
> | exactly two .c files: uuencode.c and uudecode.c. I've already
> | answered: if an independance of executable name is your goal, feel
> | free to close this PR. If somebody call 'uuencode' a 'foobar'...
>
> Yes, we like all programs to not hard-code their program name, so that
> they behave consistently.
Ok.
Not a discussion :) Just a note.
Using setprogname(argv [0]) may be dangerous for SUID programs.
Invalid argv [0] may be passed through execv(2).
--
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
|
|