Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 02:09:39 +0000 From: davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au (David Nugent) To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: unused variable in su Message-ID: <Mutt.19960111020939.davidn@labs.blaze.net.au> In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19970111131424.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>; from J Wunsch on Jan 11, 1997 13:14:24 %2B0100 References: <199701110142.CAA28453@xp11.frmug.org> <199701110834.TAA07745@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> <Mutt.19970111131424.j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch writes: > > pwd is recycled later, and shell is potentially reset later, so > > this is the 'correct' way to do it. Don't change it. > > Still, it's fairly obfuscated code. It could be better worded: IMHO, it is fine (and yes, it should be strncpy()). Using the return from str[n]cpy() is not obfuscation. YMMV. Like a lot of readability issues it depends on what you're used to and what you code yourself. > This would be less confusing for compilers and human readers. Perhaps a comment (gasp!) might help. Even with your "clearer" code the intent may not be obvious. I don't believe the compiler will care much either way. :-) I'll add one since I happen to be working on su. > Btw., shouldn't it better be a strncpy() anyway? Sure, /etc/shells is > at the mercy of the sysadmin, but he isn't unfailable. It is /etc/master.passwd in this case, but what you say is still true. In a setuid binary no less, but fortunately no "return" anywhere in main(). Regards, David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia Voice +61-3-9791-9547 Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507 3:632/348@fidonet davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19960111020939.davidn>