On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:54:58PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:14:28PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > >> Yupp, it's certainly a good idea to make our logging functions safe for > > >> execution in any context. > > >> > > >> What I don't understands though is why mkostemp() would not be safe here? > > > mkostemp is not on the list of "safe" functions. I looked at the > > > implementation, and it actually has a static variable, so it really > > > cannot be called. > > > > But does this matter here? The static var is still mixed with random. > > It seems it will work just fine, at least with the next iteration? > I guess it's a question whether we want to rely on a specific > implementation, or on the promises made by standards/documentation. > mkostemp might call the random number generator, which might modify some > global state, etc, which could be visible from outside of the signal handler. > It just feels risky to make promises about this. Yeah, it's hard to tell because of all the ifdefs, but it might call gettimeofday, which rules it out.
> writev should probably be safe... OTOH, it's trivial to reimplement. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
