{my_,}sgetspent(): Two identical functions

Line 64 in 73e58ad

static struct spwd *my_sgetspent (const char *string)

Line 38 in 73e58ad

sgetspent(const char *string)

Does anyone know why we have two functions that claim to be the same thing? I mean, my_sgetspent() claims to be our sgetspent(3), and then our sgetspent() is obviously ours, and is obviously sgetspent(3).

May I use some dynamite? :-)

Oh. My. God.

$ diff -u <(grepc sgetspent .) <(grepc my_sgetspent .)
--- /dev/fd/63	2024-11-10 23:44:28.971509251 +0100
+++ /dev/fd/62	2024-11-10 23:44:28.975509284 +0100
@@ -1,23 +1,19 @@
-./lib/sgetspent.c:struct spwd *
-sgetspent(const char *string)
+./lib/shadow.c:static struct spwd *my_sgetspent (const char *string)
 {
-	static char spwbuf[PASSWD_ENTRY_MAX_LENGTH];
-	static struct spwd spwd;
-	char *fields[FIELDS];
-	char *cp;
-	int i;
+	int                 i;
+	char                *fields[FIELDS];
+	char                *cp;
+	static char         spwbuf[BUFSIZ];
+	static char         empty[] = "";
+	static struct spwd  spwd;
 
 	/*
 	 * Copy string to local buffer.  It has to be tokenized and we
 	 * have to do that to our private copy.
 	 */
 
-	if (strlen (string) >= sizeof spwbuf) {
-		fprintf (shadow_logfd,
-		         "%s: Too long passwd entry encountered, file corruption?\n",
-		         shadow_progname);
-		return NULL;	/* fail if too long */
-	}
+	if (strlen (string) >= sizeof spwbuf)
+		return 0;
 	strcpy (spwbuf, string);
 	stpsep(spwbuf, "\n");
 
@@ -30,14 +26,16 @@
 		fields[i] = strsep(&cp, ":");
 
 	if (i == (FIELDS - 1))
-		fields[i++] = "";
+		fields[i++] = empty;
 
 	if (cp != NULL || (i != FIELDS && i != OFIELDS))
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Start populating the structure.  The fields are all in
-	 * static storage, as is the structure we pass back.
+	 * static storage, as is the structure we pass back.  If we
+	 * ever see a name with '+' as the first character, we try
+	 * to turn on NIS processing.
 	 */
 
 	spwd.sp_namp = fields[0];
@@ -46,13 +44,13 @@
 	/*
 	 * Get the last changed date.  For all of the integer fields,
 	 * we check for proper format.  It is an error to have an
-	 * incorrectly formatted number.
+	 * incorrectly formatted number, unless we are using NIS.
 	 */
 
 	if (fields[2][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_lstchg = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_lstchg, fields[2], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Get the minimum period between password changes.
@@ -61,7 +59,7 @@
 	if (fields[3][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_min = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_min, fields[3], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Get the maximum number of days a password is valid.
@@ -70,7 +68,7 @@
 	if (fields[4][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_max = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_max, fields[4], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * If there are only OFIELDS fields (this is a SVR3.2 /etc/shadow
@@ -93,7 +91,7 @@
 	if (fields[5][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_warn = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_warn, fields[5], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Get the number of days of inactivity before an account is
@@ -103,7 +101,7 @@
 	if (fields[6][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_inact = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_inact, fields[6], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Get the number of days after the epoch before the account is
@@ -113,7 +111,7 @@
 	if (fields[7][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_expire = -1;
 	else if (a2sl(&spwd.sp_expire, fields[7], NULL, 0, 0, LONG_MAX) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * This field is reserved for future use.  But it isn't supposed
@@ -123,7 +121,7 @@
 	if (fields[8][0] == '\0')
 		spwd.sp_flag = SHADOW_SP_FLAG_UNSET;
 	else if (str2ul(&spwd.sp_flag, fields[8]) == -1)
-		return NULL;
+		return 0;
 
 	return (&spwd);
 }

Bonus points because this is a widely available libc (glibc, musl) function, and I can put dynamite on both of them.