[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110724183341.GC6429@albatros>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:33:41 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: holywar: malloc() vs. OOM
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:27 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > it could "fix" deprecated/dangerous calls
> > (maybe turn them into compiletime errors)
> > and things like oom failures into runtime errors
> >
> > so bad code can be compiled against this radical extremist libc
>
> The only problem I see is that it only catches "known bad" code.
Sure, as almost any workaround of API misdesign.
> As an
> admin I would be inclined to simply look for another program that
> performs the function I need, rather than trying to compile in
> workarounds, if I knew a program had code that bad..
It depends on the requirements and level of paranoia :) It could be the
only program in the required programs class. It could be the only
program you may use for non-technical reasons. Other programs could be
not much better (re: desktop). In the ideal world any hardening would be
redundant ;)
--
Vasiliy
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.
