Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:02:42 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Pending issues for next release On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:48:44PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > That email also mentions some extra macros for utmp/wtmp pathname. I > > looked at the issue, and utmp.h is actually defining _PATH_UTMP and > > _PATH_WTMP in ways that conflict with paths.h... We should address > > this. Any ideas how? I'd like to keep the /dev/null definitions, but > > I'm a little bit scared some broken program might see them and end up > > unlinking /dev/null and replacing it with an empty utmp file at > > startup. > > we could say that the user should not run buggy code as root > > or define the paths to the usual strings so those programs > will fail at runtime instead of compile time How about "/dev/null/utmp"? :) That's guaranteed not to exist. > so if the stack address is supposed to be secret then > indeed it is better not to mix it into the filename Would just using the time in nanoseconds be sufficient? It's a ~29.9 bit value, so at least nearly all possible names are achievable. Rich
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.