[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problematic temporary BAT files

From: Bostjan Mihoric
Subject: Re: Problematic temporary BAT files
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:14:37 +0200

Ooops, sorry about that.
Was not paying attention to what gmail removed.

Anyway, that's the problem. Redirecting the temporary folder doesn't work in this case.


On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
[Please keep the list address on the CC, so that it gets archived, and
seen by others.]

Resending to the list.

> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:06:01 +0200
> From: Bostjan Mihoric <address@hidden>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>     > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:45:23 +0200
>     > From: Bostjan Mihoric <address@hidden>
>     >
>     > Even if we ignore the impact this can have on (SSD) drive wear (doing a
>     lot of
>     > big compilations),
>     I don't think this is a real problem. There are systems out there
>     which have the page file on an SSD disk, and still the disk resources
>     are enough to go on long after the machine is upgraded and abandoned.
> True, such systems are around. Yet, I observed a lot of BAT files being
> created.
> If I'm not mistaken, one gets generated for every command (every line that fits
> the
> rule). And every one can mean write amplification of 512 KiB (or whatever SSD
> write block is sized at), even if BAT file is 100 B. I would not underestimate
> this.
> But let's skip this for now, as it is of less importance. This part could
> indeed be
> solved by redirecting the temporary folders as you suggest.
>     > there are Windows systems out there where the policies deny running
>     > programs from temporary folders (which are one of the first stops
>     > for malware).
>     You can control where the batch files are created, see below.
>     > What I would very much appreciate is if there would be at least one of
>     the
>     > following options:
>     > A) Option to not generate BAT files (work like Make 3.80 in this regard).
>     Not going to happen, unless someone submits a clean patch to do that,
>     and shows that the problems that caused us to switch to batch files
>     are not reintroduced back.
>     > B) Option to set the target directory for temporary BAT files (instead of
>     using
>     > system defaults).
>     The "system defaults" are documented here:
>     This is the function used by Make on Windows to obtain the temporary
>     directory name. By setting one of the environment variables
>     documented on that page, you can control where Make creates these
>     batch files.
> Yes, I already knew this is possible, but... Please assume that temporary
> folders are
> blocked from execution (for a good reason). This goes no matter where I
> redirect them.
> Malware also looks up that same API, so the target folder should be blocked.
> I hope you understand.
>     > Could you please direct me, where should I submit this suggestion so that
>     it
>     > has a chance of being implemented?
>     Here.
> Thanks!
> Bostjan

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]