netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprog

Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?
From: Aleksey Cheusov
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:55:17 UTC
Newsgroups: fa.netbsd.bugs

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.
 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>