Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 03:39:23 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to do about rcmdsh(3) ? Message-ID: <CAF6rxg=fm3FwzoeHCxprQwO-Jjz97ORsKJMP%2Bt%2BV5oRhbx%2BPsg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=LbpQ1NfLQN%2B6hH61HusTdZ8hiuFfxXKb5sU_8oidROw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxg=LbpQ1NfLQN%2B6hH61HusTdZ8hiuFfxXKb5sU_8oidROw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 June 2018 at 03:32, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > Now that the rcmds are removed from base, it opens a question about > what to do with rcmdsh(3). > This is documented as > rcmdsh =E2=80=93 return a stream to a remote command without superus= er > And is implemented as a rather simple wrapper of getaddrinfo and exec. > > This isn't something I'd imagine we'd add to libc now-a-days and is > currently broken by default (due to defaulting to _PATH_RSH) > > I'm not sure there is much value in keeping this function around. I > did a rather naive search for uses of this function in ports and > couldn't find any. I'm preparing a more comprehensive patch for an > exp-run. > > Does anyone have a reason to keep in libc? Any objection to removing > it? If no, is there anything special I need to do beyond just removing > the implementation and references? Since I'm sending emails at 3:30am anyways, I'll point that generally applies to rcmd(3) and related too. I don't really understand the use-case for these functions on modern system= s. --=20 Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxg=fm3FwzoeHCxprQwO-Jjz97ORsKJMP%2Bt%2BV5oRhbx%2BPsg>