tags 702349 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
> lintian should not complain about hardening for package written
> in pure Ocaml
Any update on this? Does Lintian need to do anything anymore? :)
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:42:35 +0100 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Glondu?=
glo...@debian.org wrote:
Le 06/01/2014 16:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff a écrit :
Le 05/03/2013 16:35, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Does ELF binaries produced by pure Ocaml have any distinct feature
that can be used to tell them
block 702349 by 792502
Thanks
Updated patch attached, all the hardening-no-relro warnings are gone now.
I've opened a bug for the ocaml package.
--- a/debian/patches/0010-Obey-ldflags.patch 1970-01-01 02:00:00.0 +0200
+++ b/debian/patches/0010-Obey-ldflags.patch 2015-07-15
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 702349 by 792502
Bug #702349 [lintian] lintian should not complain about hardening for package
written in pure Ocaml
702349 was not blocked by any bugs.
702349 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 702349: 792502
Thanks
Le 06/01/2014 16:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff a écrit :
Le 05/03/2013 16:35, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Does ELF binaries produced by pure Ocaml have any distinct feature
that can be used to tell them apart from any other ELF binary?
ELF binaries produced by the OCaml compiler always include a bit of
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 08:57:01PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Le 05/03/2013 16:35, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Does ELF binaries produced by pure Ocaml have any distinct feature
that can be used to tell them apart from any other ELF binary?
ELF binaries produced by the OCaml compiler always
Prach Pongpanich prach...@gmail.com writes:
lintian should not complain about hardening for package written in
pure Ocaml [0],[1],[2]
The problem is, that even pure OCaml contains enough features
that may permit arbitrary memory corruptions by an attacker. For
instance, String.unsafe_blit
Le 06/03/2013 09:37, Hendrik Tews a écrit :
In principle I agree, that programs written in a certain subset
of OCaml do not need these hardening features. However, at the
moment this safe subset is not even identified...
OCaml has a built-in notion of unsafe feature (see ocamlobjinfo
output)
OCaml has a built-in notion of unsafe feature (see ocamlobjinfo
output) that could serve as a starting point for that.
Yes, I tried this on
let f b =
let a = abcde in
let c = Obj.magic b in
String.unsafe_blit c 0 a 0 5
For the .cmo, ocamlobjinfo surprisingly
Le 06/03/2013 10:48, Hendrik Tews a écrit :
OCaml has a built-in notion of unsafe feature (see ocamlobjinfo
output) that could serve as a starting point for that.
Yes, I tried this on
let f b =
let a = abcde in
let c = Obj.magic b in
String.unsafe_blit c
Package: lintian
lintian should not complain about hardening for package written in
pure Ocaml [0],[1],[2]
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2012/05/msg00091.html
[1]
http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/debian-ocaml-ma...@lists.debian.org.html
[2]
On 2013-03-05 16:25, Prach Pongpanich wrote:
Package: lintian
lintian should not complain about hardening for package written in
pure Ocaml [0],[1],[2]
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2012/05/msg00091.html
[1]
Le 05/03/2013 16:35, Niels Thykier a écrit :
Does ELF binaries produced by pure Ocaml have any distinct feature
that can be used to tell them apart from any other ELF binary?
ELF binaries produced by the OCaml compiler always include a bit of C
code (the runtime), so they are never actually
13 matches
Mail list logo
