This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: obvious patches at bugzilla
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- Cc: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:29:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: obvious patches at bugzilla
- References: <20130822110230 dot GA22446 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAHN_R3RfihOUOTYsXhBZD9t88wtRy21QpMJ4kcob6zVvwX5sg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:45:52PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 16:32, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@seznam.cz> wrote:
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15847
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15844
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15764
> > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15859
>
> Post them on list with attribution to the authors? I won't call all
> of them obvious though. 15859 may be straightforward (I haven't
> actually verified), but not obvious.
It's obvious that the issue fixed in the patch for 15859 fixes a bug,
the shadowed variable. What's not obvious is whether it was masking
another bug, i.e. whether fixing the leak might lead to accessing
memory after it is freed. The dynamic linker is quite fragile in that
area, so I would be hesitant to fix such an issue without having
someone thoroughly study the lifetime of the objects involved...
The others seem to be purely comment changes.
Rich