Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:39:46 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca>, James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mktemp() vs. mkstemp() Message-ID: <39204472.706CB1D2@softweyr.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005141952440.20005-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> > It's certainly not like it would be the first non-portable function
> > we've added. Where adding functions to libraries encourages better
> > coding practices, I'm (often) in favour of it, especially if it
> > encourages more secure coding practices. Ultimately everyone
> > benefits, and the pain is short-term.
>
> True, but I'd venture that in most of those cases they did something a
> little less trivial than one line of code.
We could simply redefine mktemp to not be such a security hole. Do
common programs that use mktemp depend on side effects?
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39204472.706CB1D2>