[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection
From: |
Anthony J. Bentley |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:45:50 -0700 |
Hi Ken,
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >The "brokenness" is that OpenBSD simply doesn't implement utmpx, because
> >it's seen as an unsafe and insecure interface. OpenBSD aren't the only ones
> >who feel this way (the musl C library also doesn't support utmpx, for the
> >same reasons: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2012/03/04/4).
>
> I'd find the "security" arguments more compelling if OpenBSD didn't
> implement utmp, which has (as far I can tell) the same security issues.
Well, I'm just repeating what I've heard elsewhere. I am not familiar
with how utmp{,x} works myself. utmp is no doubt kept around because
existing software demands it, and the implementation is mature enough
to not have known holes.
> >As far as I know the behavior of the utmpx functions are not defined by
> >POSIX either.
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/functions/endutxent.html
And on that page utmpx is marked as an XSI extension. To my understanding
those are optional and not required to be implemented in POSIX-compliant
software.
--
Anthony J. Bentley
- [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Ken Hornstein, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Ken Hornstein, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Anthony J. Bentley, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Ken Hornstein, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection,
Anthony J. Bentley <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Ken Hornstein, 2013/01/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Paul Vixie, 2013/01/01
Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/01/01
Re: [Nmh-workers] Garbage collection, Paul Vixie, 2013/01/01