On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:53:15PM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote: >> The latest patch at the same URL fixes that issue. It basically >> deactivates all existing variables and inserts the new environ >> variables into the envVars array. > > Calling __clean_env(false) is good but the rest looks like a bit > overkill. It has the advantage that if environ was replace with an empty array or a list of variables that already were defined (limited copy of environment), then it would not need to make any allocations (i.e., usr.sbin/zic/zdump.c). Also, cleaning up almost everything and starting from the beginning would actually be trickier to get it right if using __build_env(). It would require adding more intelligence (complexity) to __build_env() to know how to add a new environ to an existing envVars array. Right now, it builds it from scratch. > Previously the goal of veryfy_env() is just deactivate, the goal of > build_env() is just build. It was build_env() who insetrts new environ > variables into envVars array in old variant, isn't? Yes, it was. Now, it is to merge in a new environ array. I renamed it __merge_environ() to better reflect its new role. > Now verify_env() takes the role of build_env() too, moreover, may > cause setenv() to be called recursively which isn't good. Do you see a problem that I am missing, or are you suggesting a change to prevent potential problems from future changes? The test at issue is this: if (__merge_environ() == -1 || (envVars == NULL && __build_env() == -1)) 1. environ was changed 2. program calls setenv()[1] 3. setenv()[1] calls __merge_environ()[1] 4. __merge_environ()[1] calls setenv()[2] 5. setenv()[2] calls __merge_environ()[2] 6. __merge_environ()[2] returns 0 since environ == watchEnviron 7. setenv()[2] adds new name/value pair and returns 8. Jump to step 4 until environ is inserted. 9. __merge_environ()[1] returns 10. setenv()[1] returns 11. program is happy :) The alternative, which I had actually considered, is to split setenv() into __setenv() which is almost the entire current setenv() and a new setenv() that is just a wrapper around __setenv() with the beginning checks. This seems a bit of a waste, but I may be mistaken. Sean -- scf_at_FreeBSD.orgReceived on Thu Jul 05 2007 - 14:39:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:13 UTC