From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
cc: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Remove one use of IDENT_USERNAME_MAX
In-reply-to: <20191028.141008.1808344564081861818.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
References: <c798fba5-8b71-4f27-c78e-37714037ea31@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20191028.141008.1808344564081861818.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:10:08 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <14310.1572270354.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:45:54 -0400
Message-ID: <14311.1572270354@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> At Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:55:03 +0200, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2=
ndquadrant.com> wrote in =

>> IDENT_USERNAME_MAX is the maximum length of the information returned
>> by an ident server, per RFC 1413.  Using it as the buffer size in peer
>> authentication is inappropriate.  It was done here because of the
>> historical relationship between peer and ident authentication.  But
>> since it's also completely useless code-wise, remove it.

> In think one of the reasons for the coding is the fact that *pw is
> described to be placed in the static area, which can be overwritten by
> succeeding calls to getpw*() functions.

Good point ... so maybe pstrdup instead of using a fixed-size buffer?

			regards, tom lane