On 2011-Dec-19 22:01:04 +0200, Kostik Belousov <[email protected]> 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, Clément Lecigne <[email protected]> wrote: >Dont know but the ld_printerror != '\0' in the patch should be >*ld_printerror != '\0', no? Oops, my mistake. Yes, there is a missing '*'. -- Peter Jeremy
pgpLjSLSzEykI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
