Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:29:45 +0000 From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@googlemail.com> To: Ashish SHUKLA <ashish@freebsd.org> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getpwent bug? Message-ID: <4C402689.7070005@netbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <8639vjrdru.fsf@chateau.d.if> References: <AANLkTin5RGYfu_Xt5HWxKFO8GMTOi3YWQ8dyr95ZDW-Y@mail.gmail.com> <20100715172615.GC5485@dan.emsphone.com> <86tyo0qd19.fsf@chateau.d.if> <20100716043056.GF5485@dan.emsphone.com> <AANLkTilSum3vumQhv4qtOQhCaSHo832Ub3b9bEhP0zSt@mail.gmail.com> <86d3unrfgu.fsf@chateau.d.if> <4C401B31.4000402@netbsd.org> <8639vjrdru.fsf@chateau.d.if>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/16/10 09:12, Ashish SHUKLA wrote: > Jens Rehsack writes: > > [...] > >> I cached the entires - I rate setpwent as to dangerous. > > dangerous ? why ? Because it modifies something - and I might not know the source. getpwent(3) delivers entries from yp, too (or LDAP) etc. - and when I call setpwent(3) for such an entry, what happens then? Long explanation for: I do not know the consequences - and that's why I rate it dangerous as workaround. Jens
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C402689.7070005>