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: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:35:05 -0400
- 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>
- Reply-to: cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com
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.
cgf