Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:41:12 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@corbulon.video-collage.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, markm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pam_setenv() crashes rshd... Message-ID: <200212211441.gBLEfCfU041482@corbulon.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpy96jldzt.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> writes: > > The following patch fixes (works around?) the problem for me > > (pam_setenv is rather inefficiently implemented by the vendor, BTW), > I am the vendor. What's wrong with pam_setenv()? I only went into the code to see where it may be crashing my rshd and noticed the mild inefficiency. Did not know where the code is from either. Sorry if I offended you. The pam_setenv and pam_putenv are backwards, IMHO. putenv should be using setenv -- not the other way around. Currently, the setenv takes NAME and VALUE separately, mallocs a new buffer, sprintfs %s=%s into it, sends the buffer to putenv, which re-parses it and frees it. I think, pam_setenv should be doing the actual "dirty work", with putenv being a wrapper. This would save some cycles (and, possibly, syscalls -- from malloc), but, of course, it would not be very significant with todays hardware, yada, yada... Would you have any other comments about my original post -- why is pam_setenv causing the segfault somewhere, and is there anything wrong with my patch? Thanks! -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200212211441.gBLEfCfU041482>