Todd C. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:13:54 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > > > I don't understand what you are solving. > > > > The way I look at it... you want to convert one kind of bug into a > > different kind of bug? > > > > In the end, the program quits, noone looks at the corefile, or is it > > in a privsep program and there is no corefile, and noone is the wiser > > and it never gets fixed. > > The problem is that alarm(3) is not allowed to fail and so there > is no standard way to check for failure if one were to occur. But > we either have to return *something* in this case or abort the > process.
calling abort is a crazy harmful form of failing. > Personally, I think just returning either 0 or UINT_MAX in this > case is fine. I lean toward returning 0 in this case which is what > musl and glibc do. fine with me
