Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> * Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000515 12:11] wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 14 May 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's certainly not like it would be the first non-portable function
> > > > we've added. Where adding functions to libraries encourages better
> > > > coding practices, I'm (often) in favour of it, especially if it
> > > > encourages more secure coding practices. Ultimately everyone
> > > > benefits, and the pain is short-term.
> > >
> > > True, but I'd venture that in most of those cases they did something a
> > > little less trivial than one line of code.
> >
> > We could simply redefine mktemp to not be such a security hole. Do
> > common programs that use mktemp depend on side effects?
>
> The side effect they depend on is that the char * returned is unique,
> but since no file was created it's not garanteed so. You can't fix
> it.
Drat, that's right. Anyone wanna pollute the kernel and filesystem
layers with a "reserve this filename" function? That sounds fugly,
doesn't it?
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
