--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2011-Dec-19 22:01:04 +0200, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:54:46AM -0800, Xin LI wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to me that this proposed change would do something
>> with security?
rtld is a fairly critical part of FreeBSD infrastructure and there
have been several instances where rtld changes have resulted in
security vulnerabilities.
>I also think that UTRACE part is not bad, but will object against the
>LD_PRINT_ERROR part.
Could you please explain your objections to the LD_PRINT_ERROR part as
I don't see an immediate problem with them.
> FWIW, it should use rtld_printf() instead of printf(),
>but this is moot point.
Accepted.
On 2011-Dec-19 21:02:49 +0100, Cl=E9ment Lecigne <clemun@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dont know but the ld_printerror !=3D '\0' in the patch should be
>*ld_printerror !=3D '\0', no?
Oops, my mistake. Yes, there is a missing '*'.
--=20
Peter Jeremy
--ibTvN161/egqYuK8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk7vvGsACgkQ/opHv/APuIdG6wCdGygpY20erwvO4y2hSU4r2kTY
lQYAn20Es5yqn6DFeX+ShnRbFn4qXwdn
=HgJA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ibTvN161/egqYuK8--