On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 04:33:16PM -0600, Michael S. Zick wrote: > On Thu February 2 2006 14:09, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:29:38PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > really depends on the dietlibc, but I'd assume it > > > > is _still_ broken on HPPA, nevertheless the glibc > > > > is _not_ a good alternative, although it _might_ > > > > work for simple things. > > > > > > I guess we can find out when Joel sends results of tests? > > > > possible, well, testme and testfs will not > > detect the insecurities introduced by glibc > > > Are there any tests available to check for these glibc problems?
I don't know of explicit tests, but it should be possible to create some, given that somebody wants to spend time on it ... > If not, perhaps a pointer or two into the mail archives on > the subject or pointer(s) to a discussion of the problems found? http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive/vserver/msg09379.html (there are others, just goolge for it) IMHO dietlibc isn't a bad choice after all, although I was initially annoyed by the change, why? - we get smaller binaries - we can easily test on various platforms as diet has excellent support for cross compiling - the resulting code is somewhat efficient, so much simpler to debug than glibc - we get the 'security' of statically linked executables (which means we do not have to worry) - we do not have to struggle with distro specific libc modifications or features (or lack thereof) best, Herbert > Mike > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [email protected] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
