John Spencer wrote: > its not the job of the libc to make broken code happy. > > i dont think its a good idea to make thousands of correct programs slower, > just that GNU guys dont have to fix one program.
Following your argumentation, we don't need - W^X protection in the x86 hardware, - address space layout randomization in the kernel, - support for -fstack-protector, -fmudflag, and -fbounds-check in gcc and libc, - double-free checks in libc, - function pointer encryption in libc. We don't need all this, because broken programs are easily identified and all other programs are correct, right? Read <http://cansecwest.com/csw08/csw08-holtmann.pdf>. Bruno