From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jun 8 20:47:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083CC37BCC5; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:47:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA68437; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:47:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:47:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Boris Popov Cc: John LoVerso , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mktemp() patch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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. File 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 :-) Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message