Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

> - if (pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff) != size) { > + if ((nr = pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff)) != -1) { did you intend to check for == -1? > warn("read(%s)", name); should that not say pread?

Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

Lucas wrote: > "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > > What errno is being printed here? > > """Everything is alright""" error, > > $ : >empty && ./obj/ldd empty > ldd: read(empty): Undefined error: 0 > > which would be the same as a short read in the pread below. Nope, that is not correct.

Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

That looks better. Lucas wrote: > Theo Buehler wrote: > > > - if (pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff) != size) { > > > + if ((nr = pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff)) != -1) { > > > > did you intend to check for == -1? > > > > > warn("read(%s)", name); > > > > should that not

Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

"Theo de Raadt" wrote: > Nope, that is not correct. > > errno is not being cleared. It just happens to be zero. Future > code changes could insert another operation above which would set > errno, and then this would print a report about that error. Although I was being sarcastic with

Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

Theo Buehler wrote: > > - if (pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff) != size) { > > + if ((nr = pread(fd, phdr, size, ehdr.e_phoff)) != -1) { > > did you intend to check for == -1? > > > warn("read(%s)", name); > > should that not say pread? Indeed, thanks for spotting both

Re: ldd: check read return value to avoid unitialized struct fields

"Theo de Raadt" wrote: > What errno is being printed here? """Everything is alright""" error, $ : >empty && ./obj/ldd empty ldd: read(empty): Undefined error: 0 which would be the same as a short read in the pread below. Bigger suggestion below, addressing both read and pread.

Re: standardize and simplify GitHub submodule handling in ports?

Some comments already. I haven't looked very closely. On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 03:12:18PM -0400, Thomas Frohwein wrote: > The current draft hijacks post-extract target, but it would be easy to > add this to _post-extract-finalize in bsd.port.mk similar to how the > post-extract commands from

hardclock(9), roundrobin: make roundrobin() an independent clock interrupt

This is the next piece of the clock interrupt reorganization patch series. This patch removes the roundrobin() call from hardclock() and makes roundrobin() an independent clock interrupt. - Revise roundrobin() to make it a valid clock interrupt callback. It remains periodic. It still runs at

Re: [www] fix broken links on loongson.html

Hi, I noticed this today and commited your change. mbuhl On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:33:36PM +, Yifei Zhan wrote: > Hi, > > Several links on loongson.html are now broken as zkml.lemote.com is no > longer being resolved. > > I think it's a good idea to redirect them to their archived

Re: standardize and simplify GitHub submodule handling in ports?

On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 11:27:24PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > Some comments already. I haven't looked very closely. > On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 03:12:18PM -0400, Thomas Frohwein wrote: > > The current draft hijacks post-extract target, but it would be easy to > > add this to _post-extract-finalize

standardize and simplify GitHub submodule handling in ports?

Hi, GitHub projects using submodules seems to be a common enough case that I'm wondering if it would be helpful to simplify and standardize it. I got the idea when I saw how the modules for go and cargo pull in their modules or crates, respectively. The current state is that projects with