From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Aug 8 3:20: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709EA37B7D9 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:20:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id DAA29451; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:20:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200008081020.DAA29451@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: bin/20445: restore(8) -r and -R don't use mktemp(3) Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/20445; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: Jon Masami Kuroda Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/20445: restore(8) -r and -R don't use mktemp(3) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:16:39 +0200 On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:37:22 MST, Jon Masami Kuroda wrote: > This "bug" should not have any security impact if I understand open(2) > and the "O_EXCL" flag correctly. It is, so far, just a productivity > annoyance. While that's certainly the way it looks to me, I'm very uncomfortable with proceding without finding out _why_ OpenBSD's rev 1.3 was required. Essentially, your patch proposes that we revert NetBSD's rev 1.3. The CVS log for that delta implies that the patch you propose will somehow break the -r and -R options. I'm not sure whether is still a deliverable address. Perhaps you could chat to Theo and ask him why the revision was introduced in the first place? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message