[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:22:59 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: setenv if value=NULL, what say standard? Bug?
* Jean-Marc Pigeon <jmp@...e.ca> [2015-04-23 08:58:50 -0400]:
> >
> >> so the library (glibc and old libc) used for linux over the years
> >> defined an expected behavior to this "UB".
> >
> > No, that was merely a bug in glibc, not a feature.
>
> Hmmm... glibc-2.21, setenv.c explicitly check the value NULL
> condition, so situation is checked, you could object about
> the way program handle it, but it is not a bug (situation
> expected and addressed).
>
you are wrong, glibc actually corrupted then environ on NULL
argument and this was fixed recently
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=03c1e456b079929a8290aeb4aadb05c0df73bfd2
stop mixing runtime failure with ub, that leads to nonsense
discussions.
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.
