On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:54:58PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:14:28PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> >> Yupp, it's certainly a good idea to make our logging functions safe for >> >> execution in any context. >> >> >> >> What I don't understands though is why mkostemp() would not be safe here? >> > mkostemp is not on the list of "safe" functions. I looked at the >> > implementation, and it actually has a static variable, so it really >> > cannot be called. >> >> But does this matter here? The static var is still mixed with random. >> It seems it will work just fine, at least with the next iteration? > I guess it's a question whether we want to rely on a specific > implementation, or on the promises made by standards/documentation.
I think the status-quo of glibc is good enough for us to define our expectations. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel