all is in the subject. this is not so important, but be safe. How-To-Repeat: :if=: in gettytab
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > >Description: > > all is in the subject. this is not so important, but be safe. > > >How-To-Repeat: > > :if=: in gettytab > > >Fix: > > Index: main.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/libexec/getty/main.c,v > retrieving revision 1.28.2.2 > diff -u -r1.28.2.2 main.c > --- main.c 2001/03/05 11:17:08 1.28.2.2 > +++ main.c 2001/03/11 06:02:46 > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ > > /* if this is the first time through this, and an > issue file has been given, then send it */ > - if (first_time && IF) { > + if (first_time && IF && *IF) { > int fd; > > if ((fd = open(IF, O_RDONLY)) != -1) { This is safer than `:if=/bin/sh:'. It just causes the open to fail just like for any other nonexistent file (POSIX standard). Bruce
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: [snip] > > - if (first_time && IF) { > > + if (first_time && IF && *IF) { > > int fd; > > > > if ((fd = open(IF, O_RDONLY)) != -1) { > > This is safer than `:if=/bin/sh:'. It just causes the open to fail > just like for any other nonexistent file (POSIX standard). yes, but this syscall isn't needed, so, why not to get rid of it if if= is empty ? Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@poboxes.com UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
On 14 May 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > [snip] > > > - if (first_time && IF) { > > > + if (first_time && IF && *IF) { > > > int fd; > > > > > > if ((fd = open(IF, O_RDONLY)) != -1) { > > > > This is safer than `:if=/bin/sh:'. It just causes the open to fail > > just like for any other nonexistent file (POSIX standard). > > yes, but this syscall isn't needed, so, why not to get rid of it if > if= is empty ? It takes more code, and takes longer in the usual case. Bruce
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > On 14 May 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > > > [snip] > > > > - if (first_time && IF) { > > > > + if (first_time && IF && *IF) { > > > > int fd; > > > > > > > > if ((fd = open(IF, O_RDONLY)) != -1) { > > > > > > This is safer than `:if=/bin/sh:'. It just causes the open to fail > > > just like for any other nonexistent file (POSIX standard). > > > > yes, but this syscall isn't needed, so, why not to get rid of it if > > if= is empty ? > > It takes more code, and takes longer in the usual case. are you joking ? a syscall faster than a simple test like this ? Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@poboxes.com UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
On 15 May 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > > On 14 May 2001, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > > > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > - if (first_time && IF) { > > > > > + if (first_time && IF && *IF) { > > > > > int fd; > > > > > > > > > > if ((fd = open(IF, O_RDONLY)) != -1) { > > > > > > > > This is safer than `:if=/bin/sh:'. It just causes the open to fail > > > > just like for any other nonexistent file (POSIX standard). > > > > > > yes, but this syscall isn't needed, so, why not to get rid of it if > > > if= is empty ? > > > > It takes more code, and takes longer in the usual case. > > are you joking ? a syscall faster than a simple test like this ? No. The null test is faster than a simple test. Bruce
anyone to commit this PR which is a one line patch ! thanks in advance. Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
For bugs matching the following criteria: Status: In Progress Changed: (is less than) 2014-06-01 Reset to default assignee and clear in-progress tags. Mail being skipped