This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] cygwin_rexec() returns pointer to deallocated memory
- From: Peter Rosin <peda at lysator dot liu dot se>
- To: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 22:39:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] cygwin_rexec() returns pointer to deallocated memory
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53811668 dot 5010208 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <5382E760 dot 7 at lysator dot liu dot se> <538312E4 dot 1040201 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <5383434B dot 8070508 at lysator dot liu dot se> <53835D4E dot 9040603 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <20140526163505 dot GA7018 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
On 2014-05-26 18:35, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:27:10PM +0100, David Stacey wrote:
>> On 26/05/14 14:36, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> I believe the comment refers to if "static" is the right answer to the
>>> problem. Is there a need to handle concurrent calls?
>>
>> I can't really comment on that. As the code stands, neither of the two
>> functions that we are discussing are reentrant. As long as the author
>> and the user(s) of the routines are both aware of that then it isn't a
>> problem.
>>
>> I was just trying to fix a coding error that was picked up by Coverity
>> Scan; it wasn't my intention to question the design.
>
> But that is the usual problem with Coverity. Making the simple, obvious
> fix to correct a Coverity warning isn't necessarily the right way to
> deal with the issue.
>
> In this case, the linux man page says:
>
> ATTRIBUTES
> Multithreading (see pthreads(7))
> The rexec() and rexec_af() functions are not thread-safe.
>
> so static is appropriate.
"Not thread-safe" doesn't automatically mean that a following call may mess
with what was returned from a prior call (by the same thread). But since
it (IMHO) is a poor interface with no description of how to free any
possibly allocated memory, I agree that static is the only viable option.
Cheers,
Peter