At 8:47 PM -0700 6/8/00, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Boris Popov wrote:
>
> > Count both, nwfs and smbfs, because any program can
> > attempt to create temporary file on these filesystems. Files
> > with an invalid file name will be rejected, and this will
> > cost an additional lookup operation(s).
>
>I'm not sure that weird filesystems are a valid argument against
>mktemp() naming - there are LOTS of UNIX code which assumes UNIX
>namespace conventions, and it's not just mktemp() which is going
>to break on weird filesystems. For example, should we limit all
>FreeBSD file names to 8.3 single-case in case someone wants to
>run from an old-style MSDOS partition?
>
>Basically, I think the answer is not to use a nwfs or smbfs
>filesystem as your TMPDIR :-)
Certainly the new version should not worry about any problems
(such as 8.3) which are just as much of a "problem" with the
current implementation.
A thought occurs to me, and it's vile enough that I would not
feel insulted if everyone unanimously shouts it down. However,
thoughts occur to me so rarely that I feel compelled to share
them if there is any chance they might be useful.
Should the new mktemp check some kind of environment variable,
and use a different list (or maybe even a totally different
algorithm) depending on the value? Perhaps have a few specific
choices, where even the "least random" option would at least
add a few characters to the current list. Maybe have the
"most random" option completely drop more of the the UID part,
and use that space for more randomly-generated bits?
Honest, I won't feel bad if everyone hates this idea or laughs
at the absurdity of it... :-)
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
