Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:33:41 +0400 From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com 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 ;) -- Vasiliy
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.