Re: (thoughts on) the mktemp() patch.

2000-06-13 Thread David Gilbert
> "Dan" == Dan Moschuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dan> I've avoided this conversation, but what would everyone think of Dan> a tmpfs type of solution with a security minded design? I took a Dan> brief look at phk's md driver, and it could be quite easily Dan> molded to do what I want to do.

Re: (thoughts on) the mktemp() patch.

2000-06-13 Thread Dan Moschuk
| > | > Maybe the soltion is to think out of the box. Maybe temporary | > filestore should be a more official OS service. Race conditions would | > be far less common if the OS itself was managing the namespace. | > | > You might even expand the capability somewhat. Provide process local, |

Re: (thoughts on) the mktemp() patch.

2000-06-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
David Gilbert wrote: > > Maybe the soltion is to think out of the box. Maybe temporary > filestore should be a more official OS service. Race conditions would > be far less common if the OS itself was managing the namespace. > > You might even expand the capability somewhat. Provide process l

(thoughts on) the mktemp() patch.

2000-06-11 Thread David Gilbert
Maybe the soltion is to think out of the box. Maybe temporary filestore should be a more official OS service. Race conditions would be far less common if the OS itself was managing the namespace. You might even expand the capability somewhat. Provide process local, uid local and global names