Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:51:30 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: a third bug in musl clone() On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/02/2018 08:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > >In any case it should be fixed by checking flags. > > I think this would be worse than the cure because it results in > subtle bugs if the kernel adds more flags which require different > argument counts. We saw that with O_TMPFILE and open/openat. Wasn't that just a bug with O_TMPFILE having implicit O_CREAT but not having the actual O_CREAT bit set in its value? I understand the sentiment here but I think if we're really worried about that we could just fail with EINVAL for unknown flags (requiring a sufficiently new libc.so to be aware of the flags) rather than leaving the UB in place. 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.