[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180103025130.GO1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:51:30 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: a third bug in musl clone()
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 08:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >In any case it should be fixed by checking flags.
>
> I think this would be worse than the cure because it results in
> subtle bugs if the kernel adds more flags which require different
> argument counts. We saw that with O_TMPFILE and open/openat.
Wasn't that just a bug with O_TMPFILE having implicit O_CREAT but not
having the actual O_CREAT bit set in its value? I understand the
sentiment here but I think if we're really worried about that we could
just fail with EINVAL for unknown flags (requiring a sufficiently new
libc.so to be aware of the flags) rather than leaving the UB in place.
Rich
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.
