From owner-freebsd-audit Tue Oct 24 13:27:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from lucifer.ninth-circle.org (lucifer.bart.nl [194.158.168.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2160037B4CF for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by lucifer.ninth-circle.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9OKRGX02944 for audit@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:27:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:27:16 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: printjob.c mktemp() problem Message-ID: <20001024222716.B2020@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <20001024140510.G93799@lucifer.bart.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001024140510.G93799@lucifer.bart.nl>; from jruigrok@via-net-works.nl on Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:05:10PM +0200 Organisation: VIA Net.Works The Netherlands Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG New patch at http://lucifer.bart.nl/~asmodai/printjob.c.diff However, there are some things I don't like in the current patch. I have these feeling that I am missing something. My memory keeps nagging about calling mkstemp() twice and only unlink() once, and then in the general case, whilst the original code only had one mktemp() and subsequently open()'d the tempfile. But that's for tomorrow. :) -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator VIA Net.Works The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.via-net-works.nl If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind..? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message