Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 22:05:27 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: Possible oversight in setvbuf()

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 04:40:52PM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> ungetc() seems to depend on f->buf pointing UNGET bytes into a valid
> array. fdopen() will provide such a thing. However, setvbuf() will set
> f->buf to the very start of the user provided buffer. Bizarrely, UNGET
> is deducted from the buffer size, but not added to the pointer.
> Oversight or intentional?

I'm committing the obvious fix. Attached is a regression test suitable
for libc-test.


View attachment "setvbuf-unget.c" of type "text/plain" (423 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.