[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110709115301.GA6510@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:53:01 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Daily reports: Friday
Luka, Rich -
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 12:41:02AM +0200, Luka Mar??eti?? wrote:
> I wanted to move on to task number 8, but I had some questions. I asked
> Rich via XMPP about them, but I guess he's still out.
OK, let's wait for Rich's comments on this. BTW, chances are that the
RLIMIT_NPROC check on setuid(2) and friends will be removed from future
kernels: http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2011/07/06/8
I understand that Rich's proposed tests are about the libc wrapper
functions that are thread-aware rather than about syscalls, yet I felt
the above was relevant to the tests.
> So in the meantime
> I started doing task number 6 (which is the next one in line, skipping
> some incomplete ones). I have the basic structure, and will be making a
> commit in an hour or so, however I'm not sure what method to employ to
> search for the specified type of functions. Hopefully I'll have an idea
> by tomorrow (you're welcome to contribute - specific keywords to grep
> for, for instance?).
I'm afraid that you'll need to manually review function lists, but you
may also use tricks like grepping function prototypes for size_t inside
the argument list.
There's some overlap with 1 ("String operations testing"), though.
Maybe for string functions, this check should be one of those performed
as part of those tests, whereas 6 ("Functions which return strings in
caller-provided buffers") should focus on other functions - things such
as getcwd(). Or maybe not. Just a thought.
> So again, my plan is finishing 6 first (right now it's called strn.c),
> then moving on to 8.
Sounds fine to me. Why not 7 ("Functions which manipulate temp copies
of an argument string"), though? BTW, let's refer to these things not
only by number, which is error-prone and excludes most members of this
mailing list from participating in the discussion. For others watching
this discussion and not knowing what the numbers are about:
http://openwall.info/wiki/musl/unit-tests
> P.S. This may be a double-post. If it is, my apologies.
I got only one copy of it. I find the ever-changing Subjects with
preserved Re: on them weird, though.
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
