[PATCH] Fix readdir_r with long file names

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 06/10/2013 09:13 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:17:59PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 06/10/2013 03:20 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2013 04:41 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>>> Yes. I just disagree with recommending that portable applications
>>>> use readdir_r (as discussed on the Austin Group tracker/list, it
>>>> has major problems related to NAME_MAX not being mandatory) and
>>>> with the idea (by someone else, not you) to add a readdir4 rather
>>>> than just deprecating caller-provided buffers for reading
>>>> directories. Those were the only things I was commenting on.
>>>
>>> Carlos, what do you think about this?  I tend to agree with Rich here
>>> and would like to back out this part of your suggestions again.
>>  
>> I'm OK with backing out the recommendation of readdir_r as a portable
>> alternative, but the text should instead say *why* readdir_r is not 
>> a good portable alternative. That is to say we should specifically
>> dissuade the use if that's actually the truth.
> 
> I think the text should be informative and objective rather than
> dogmatic. It should include the following information:
> 
> - On systems where NAME_MAX is not defined, readdir_r cannot be used
>   safely, as the interface contract for readdir_r is specified in
>   terms of NAME_MAX.
> 
> - On systems where NAME_MAX is defined but not enforced for all
>   filesystems, there may be directory entries whose names are readable
>   by readdir but not readdir_r, and attempts to read such names on
>   older versions of glibc may result in exploitable buffer overflows.
> 
> - Historically, POSIX does not require readdir to be thread-safe, but
>   on most (all?) known recent systems including glibc-based ones, it
>   is thread-safe as long as the same directory stream (DIR*) is not
>   accessed concurrently from multiple threads.
> 
> - Future versions of POSIX will mandate this level of thread-safety
>   for the readdir function and mark readdir_r obsolescent.
> 
> If this is deemed "too technical", perhaps someone could write a short
> summary that expresses the tradeoffs between the two interfaces. It
> would be especially useful to know if my "all?" above really is "all
> recent systems" or even "all historical implementations", since it
> would make the choice for application developers much more clear-cut.

I don't think it's too technical for a manual.

I can't comment on the "all?" bit, but I can say that you would be
safe simply saying that @theglibc does provide a thread-safe
implementation.

Cheers,
Carlos.