full-disclosure - Re: readdir_r considered harmful

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat Nov  5 18:48:15 2005
From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM (Casper.Dik@....COM)
Subject: Re: readdir_r considered harmful 

>The Austin Group should amend POSIX and the SUS in one or more of the
>following ways:
>
>1.  Standardise the dirfd function from BSD and recommend its use in
>    determining the buffer size for readdir_r.
>2.  Specify a new variant of readdir in which the buffer size is explicit
>    and the function returns an error code if the buffer is too small.
>3.  Specify that NAME_MAX must be defined as the length of the longest
>    name that can be used on any filesystem.  (This seems to be what many
>    or most implementations attempt to do at present, although POSIX
>    currently specifies otherwise.)

Why not:

4. Require the readdir() implementation to use state local to dirp.

I've never understood the rationale behind readdir_r; it's like someone
went through the manual looking for "pointers to static locations"
and defined new functions with _r for each of them, suspending thinking.

But perhaps people can look at how their readdir() implementations
behave.  The Solaris implementation appears to be "unshared dirp safe".

Casper