[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: secure_getenv + windows

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Subject: Re: secure_getenv + windows
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 12:02:50 +0200

On Sat, 2016-05-28 at 23:53 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > 
> > secure_getenv()
> > has no (known to me) meaning for windows, and that's why I'd expect
> > that call there to behave as getenv().
> I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question. I was asking why the
> behavior 
> you expect would be more useful in practice than Gnulib's current
> behavior. (If 
> secure_getenv has no known meaning for MS-Windows, then any
> implementation of it 
> should be "correct" and there should be no reason to change from the
> current 
> behavior. :-)

Let me reverse the question and ask you how do would you expect a
library to use getenv in a portable way?

In linux/freebsd it has to use secure_getenv() instead of getenv to
prevent issues with setuid programs. In windows since there is no
secure_getenv(), getenv() must be used.

How would you expect gnulib to be used in that case? Should the library
handle the portability, or gnulib?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]