From: sos AT prospect DOT com DOT ru (Sergey Okhapkin)
Subject: Are lseek changes correct?
12 Jul 1998 23:38:40 -0700
Message-ID: <01BDAE49.B095B9D0.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@drs>
To: "'cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com'" <cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com>

Wed Jul  8 15:05:10 1998  DJ Delorie  <dj AT cygnus DOT com>

	* fhandler.cc (fhandler_base::lseek): Note lseek so that next
	write() can check for the Win95 "gap" bug.
	(fhandler_base::write): If Win95 and lseek past eof
	followed by write, use WriteFile to force the "gap" to be filled
	with zeros rather than left to the "undefined" data Win32 specifies.
	(fhandler_base::fhandler_base): initialize check_win95_lseek_bug_.
	* fhandler.h (class fhandler_base): Add check_win95_lseek_bug_
	for bug: when seek past EOF and write, win95 fills with random
	data (security hole).

Shouldn't check_win95_lseek_bug_ be saved in linearize and restored in 
delinearize? Lseek() may be performed in parent, but write() - in execed 
child.

--
Sergey Okhapkin, http://www.lexa.ru/sos
Moscow, Russia.