Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:27:03 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Initial work on post-1.0 roadmap On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:14:13AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 08/30/2013 12:03:57 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:46:30AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > >> This message is purely some notes for tracking and possible > >discussion > >> of things to do after musl 1.0 is released. I'm leaning towards (but > >> undecided) maintaining separate 1.0.x and 1.1.x branches after > >the 1.0 > >> release, the 1.0.x being just bug-fixes and backports of > >non-invasive > >> changes, and real development taking place in the 1.1.x series. The > >> below items should probably then be arranged into a 1.1.x-series > >> roadmap based on how much seems reasonable to get done per release > >> (roughly, per month), and which features are in the highest demand. > > > >One more item (well, a big multi-part item): > > > >Security features -- RELRO processing in the dynamic linker, a > >replacement for _FORTIFY_SOURCE (as a layer on top of libc's headers > >rather than part of libc's headers), making it possible to build libc > >itself with stack-protector, possibly nonstandard interfaces needed > >for using kernel security features well, adapting malloc's footer > >bookkeeping to make it difficult to preserve footer when performing > >buffer overflows, ... > > This isn't on the wiki...? Indeed, the items that aren't yet there should be added to Open Issues, and a new Roadmap section for post-1.0 work should be added. I'll try to get to that soon. 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.