On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:29:20PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > Have you coordinated at all with the guy on current@ who has patches to make > setenv(3) not leak memory as bad?
No, I don't touch current allocation scheme at all. It isn't my goal. > Also, given that we malloc a limited space > for the string values, I don't see how you can make it so that one can always > just overwrite the string pointed to by putenv(3)'s return value to change > the value. If we malloc a buffer for length N and the user wants to set the > length to M > N, we pretty much have to malloc a new buffer that will end up > at a different address, so places holding onto the previous value returned > from putenv(3) will stop seeing updates. It isn't the issue. Putenv value supposed to live just up to the next putenv or setenv call, so setenv can legitimately overwrite it. -- http://ache.pp.ru/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
