On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:39:25AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It seems that the problem is not the function (API) itself,
> but broken implementations (due to the original 4.3BSD one):
> the mktemp(3) man page under Linux says:
> 
>   BUGS
>     Never use mktemp().  Some implementations follow 4.3BSD and replace
>     XXXXXX by the current process ID and a single letter,  so  that  at
>     most 26 different names can be returned.  
[...]
> The existence of broken, insecure implementations due to history
> is a good reason to avoid this function.

Maybe.  The man page is I think outdated; I'm not convinced this is
still an issue.  The issues with mktemp() are long well understood and
I'm pretty sure every vendor has fixed this in anything resembling a
currently supported OS.  

Regardless, I did outline a way to use mkstemp() to do this, years
ago.  There's a reference to it in an earlier comment in this bug:  

  http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=128900518711082

I'd be reasonably happy to take some time to rewrite safe_open() and
company, EXCEPT that I already have a patch for a 1.6 bug (#3298)
that's been completely ignored for four years.  In fact, Michael
very recently went out of his way to provide a completely independent
implementation (without ever commenting on the one I already
provided), which I pointed out completely failed to address the
problem, resulting in its reversion...  I then provided an improved
patch which, like the first, has been completely ignored.  This,
despite the lengthy conversation we just had about that very problem. 

That experience, combined with a much earlier (2004-ish?) one where I
had to pull some teeth to get committed a couple of patches related to
usability of the PGP UI, leaves me extremely disinclined to spend time
writing code for Mutt.  I have no inclination to spend my own free
time on a solution that's just going to be unceremoniously dismissed.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

Attachment: pgpG2iy3jn64W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to