Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:33:41 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <>
Subject: Re: holywar: malloc() vs. OOM

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 09:27 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > it could "fix" deprecated/dangerous calls
> > (maybe turn them into compiletime errors)
> > and things like oom failures into runtime errors
> > 
> > so bad code can be compiled against this radical extremist libc
> The only problem I see is that it only catches "known bad" code.

Sure, as almost any workaround of API misdesign.

> As an
> admin I would be inclined to simply look for another program that
> performs the function I need, rather than trying to compile in
> workarounds, if I knew a program had code that bad..

It depends on the requirements and level of paranoia :)  It could be the
only program in the required programs class.  It could be the only
program you may use for non-technical reasons.  Other programs could be
not much better (re: desktop).  In the ideal world any hardening would be
redundant ;)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.