On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 06:16:17PM -0400, random...@fastmail.us wrote: > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014, at 16:57, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 08:36:37PM +0000, Michael Forney wrote: > > > - snprintf(h->uname, sizeof h->uname, "%s", pw->pw_name); > > > - snprintf(h->gname, sizeof h->gname, "%s", gr->gr_name); > > > + snprintf(h->uname, sizeof h->uname, "%s", pw ? pw->pw_name : ""); > > > + snprintf(h->gname, sizeof h->gname, "%s", gr ? gr->gr_name : ""); > > > > The patches look good, thanks! > > > > Just a small clarification on this one, do other tar implementations > > do the same here? > > Yes. I looked at heirloom (both tar and cpio), 4.4BSD pax, GNU tar, and > star. Heirloom prints an error, none of the rest do, and all seem to put > in an empty string (or do nothing and the field is initialized earlier > with null bytes).
Cool, thanks for taking the time. An empty string seems most sensible I guess.
