On Wed, Sep 12, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Rather than a single jumbo patch, perhaps it would help to first add autoconf > > support and a sample usage of getpwnam_r()? After that, adding proper > > reentrant support to all of the modules should be fairly parallelizable. > > In fact, let's go ahead and get started on this. > > I've just committed changes to the autoconf code which add HAVE_GETPWNAM_R and > HAVE_GETGRNAM_R defines if those functions are available. More can be added > for the other NSS functions as we get farther along. > > Is the following ok for a first implementation, or do you have more ambitious > plans? I believe you mentioned providing a wrapper for systems that don't > have getpwnam_r(), but I'm personally quite content with this. You should not allocate a static buffer for use with getpwnam_r. Instead query the return code and if errno = ERANGE (I think this was the value) increase the buffer and try it again. Else the result will be worse then the current situation, longer entries will fail. Thorsten > > Regards, > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > > > struct passwd *pwd = NULL; > #if HAVE_GETPWNAM_R > char buf[512]; > struct passwd pwd_buf; > > pwd = &pwd_buf; > #endif > > ... > > #if HAVE_GETPWNAM_R > getpwnam_r(name, pwd, buf, sizeof(buf), &pwd); > #else > pwd = getpwnam(name); > #endif > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pam-list@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE GmbH Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
