On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:38:58 -0700
Matthew Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > > +	char static_buffer[64];
>
> > I'm trying to work out what protects static_buffer?
> 
> One of us must be having a brain cramp because it looks to me like the
> buffer doesn't need protection -- it's on the stack. It's probably me
> but I'm just not seeing how this use is unsafe..

doh.  Well it had me going...

> Uh, it is on stack. It doesn't use the C keyword "static". It's just
> poorly-named.

That depends upon one's objectives in choosing a name ;)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers