From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ca3eada2f0258994fbe573a288535c96@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] tftpd vs assumptions about user none? (to have or have
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:21:06 -0500
From: Sape Mullender <sape@plan9.bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <31210468ab0a3b26d1840341520b0129@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 376b7b1a-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I examined tftpd.
> 
> Current source code tftpd.c is this order:
> 	chdir(dir) -> listen ->  setuser()
> But I suspect distributed binary:

Nicely spotted!  I changed that code because, although it runs
fine on a cpu, it doesn't seem to work in a terminal.  Now the
setuser happens after the listen completes but before any of
the work is done.  I had presotto and ehg look at it and they
both believe it's safe the way it is now.  In other words, the
process becomes none before it opens any files.

	Sape