Re: lynx-dev Options, V.Links, random (was: patch 6 - UI Pages)

[T.E.Dickey]

> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, T.E.Dickey wrote: 
>  
> > ( well, _I_ don't listen, but it wastes time when re-convincing other 
> > people ;-) 
>  
> I haven't seen any complaints recently... 
( that was a generic comment not specific to this instance ;-)

> Btw., the filename space for the 'straight counter' implementation is *much* 
> bigger than the current 'pseudo-random pick out of 10000' implementation. 
> You have UINT_MAX possible different names before wraparound occurs. 

yes (but 10000 files is also probably larger than anyone would use during one
session, I thought).
  
> > ugh (I'll look closer: I read the code but didn't go further, to see if 
> > the code works as designed: I was reading the do/while loop in LYOpenTemp). 
>  
> Are you proposing to change the OpenHiddenFile behavior?  I think it's not 

only if it's got an apparent flaw (I'm not interested in redesigning it).
If not, the limitation should be better documented.

> necessary, and some stuff may depend on it (although I don't know any 
> that does).  If reusing "our" files wasn't indended, why would there be 
> an IsOurFile test in OpenHiddenFile at all? 

mainly because the original code allowed that case, I think for the case where
it would reopen a file on VMS to avoid creating a new version and wasting
diskspace.
  
> >     + more than one person has complained that the straightforward sequence 
> >       for next-filename is not secure (simply because it provides info). 
>  
> Could you point to the last time?  (No, I don't count handwaving remarks 
> on bugtraq...) 

not bugtraq - some comments that I picked up via deja-news a while back.
(perhaps they were quoting, but not the same person iirc).
  
> >     + is the code that opens temp-filenames working properly when it finds 
> >       a collision. 
>  
> I think the last one is the critical one.  If the answer is YES, the rest 
> hardly matters. 

well I'll check & see if I think it's working properly.  (It would be not
very good to allow Lynx to overwrite a file made by the current session,
for example ;-)
  
>   Klaus 
>  


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey