🚀 go-pugleaf

In the referenced message, diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) wrote:
}In article <22855@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
}>    #define MAXNAMES 1000
}>    static char users[MAXNAMES][UT_NAMESIZE+1];
}>    (void) strncpy( users[nusers], u.ut_name, UT_NAMESIZE );
}>    users[nusers][UT_NAMESIZE] = '\0';
}>And yes, this will fail if more than 1000 users are logged in at
}>the same time.  Imagine how concerned I am.
}
}Uh, maybe equally concerned as people who knew that their operating system
}would never last 10 years, or 28 years, or whatever?
}Equally concerned as people who knew that the spacecraft would not last a
}year, or when it did, they knew it wouldn't last another 4 years?

Gosh, in ten years, if every trend in computer usage magically reverses
itself, I'll get a message telling me to change the number from 1000 to
10000.  Yes, it does check for overflow.

}You should know to set a better example than this.

I think this is an *excellent* example of appropriate programming
technology.  Dan Bernstein's hack of reading utmp twice and allocating
50 extra slots in case more users log in between the two is, when you
come down to it, *no better*.  Just more complicated.  Worse, in fact,
since he *doesn't* check for overflow.  He complained about a hard
limit of 200 users and then went and programmed a different hard limit
of 50 new users in an unknowable time period.  Foo on that.  If you
must handle an arbitrary number of users, do the doubling-realloc
trick.  But don't invest the effort until you get at least one report
of someone overflowing the fixed-size array, since any malloc hacking
that anyone does has a good chance of being buggy.  End of sermon.
---
Jef

  Jef Poskanzer  jef@well.sf.ca.us  {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef
                       "Why me, John Bigboote?"