This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: FD_SET and FORTIFY_SOURCE
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:16:40 -0400
- Subject: Re: FD_SET and FORTIFY_SOURCE
- References: <512F0CC6 dot 8080302 at redhat dot com> <20130228134139 dot GL20323 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <512F84B2 dot 1000501 at redhat dot com> <512FCFD0 dot 5050108 at gmail dot com> <CAHGf_=pYJKnSbMu-N0_OLg7X+oNBa3527BbOXLeuiWzEZ1MPAg at mail dot gmail dot com> <515083A9 dot 5050407 at redhat dot com> <51508864 dot 80706 at gmail dot com> <51508DB5 dot 40606 at redhat dot com> <51509A44 dot 70800 at gmail dot com>
On 03/25/2013 02:41 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (3/25/13 1:47 PM), Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Your change would be an API breakage?
> It depned on what breakage is. The api was broken by following commit.
> So, reverting might be breakage and might be just _fix_.
We have already had more than one release with this fix in place,
therefore it is no longer a fix, but a compatibility issue.
> commit a0f33f996f7986dbf37631a4577f8565b42df29e
> Author: Ulrich Drepper <email@example.com>
> Date: Thu Sep 8 19:48:47 2011 -0400
> Add range checking for FD_SET, FD_CLR, and FD_ISSET
> But, you are right. interoperability is also important. So, I'd suggest
> to apply following incremental patch w/ my previous one.
Why don't you repost the whole patch with a "v2" section describing
the changes you've made, along with a full rationale for the patch.
Then we can start reviewing from there. It seems to me that you've
identified a real problem and that the direction you are taking is
probably the best e.g. disable checks, add a new fority flag to
enable them again.