sendmail: from Vladimir:
Here comes the third part of compatibility patch for sendmail.
* Introduced new safe_getdomainname() -- will it be useful?
* Fixed SEGV if sender address is missed. Should snoop for sender address in mail headers?
* More compat: use HOSTNAME instead of HOST when no server is explicitly specified.
* crond: fixed mail recipient address.
function old new delta
safe_getdomainname - 56 +56
sendgetmail_main 1937 1946 +9
grep_file 846 850 +4
crond_main 1423 1425 +2
xstrtoull_range_sfx 295 296 +1
utoa_to_buf 110 108 -2
passwd_main 1053 1049 -4
sv_main 1234 1228 -6
parse_expr 841 833 -8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 4/4 up/down: 72/-20) Total: 52 bytes
diff --git a/libbb/safe_gethostname.c b/libbb/safe_gethostname.c
index 1f8b2a8..7407fb7 100644
--- a/libbb/safe_gethostname.c
+++ b/libbb/safe_gethostname.c
@@ -48,6 +48,19 @@
/* Uname can fail only if you pass a bad pointer to it. */
uname(&uts);
+ return xstrndup(!uts.nodename[0] ? "?" : uts.nodename, sizeof(uts.nodename));
+}
- return xstrndup(!*(uts.nodename) ? "?" : uts.nodename, sizeof(uts.nodename));
+/*
+ * On success return the current malloced and NUL terminated domainname.
+ * On error return malloced and NUL terminated string "?".
+ * This is an illegal first character for a domainname.
+ * The returned malloced string must be freed by the caller.
+ */
+char* FAST_FUNC safe_getdomainname(void)
+{
+ struct utsname uts;
+
+ uname(&uts);
+ return xstrndup(!uts.domainname[0] ? "?" : uts.domainname, sizeof(uts.domainname));
}