Tunables-related security regression

[Florian Weimer]

On 01/23/2017 11:52 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

>> We probably should put GLIBC_TUNABLES into category (1) if tunables are
>> *not* active (currently, it's in category (3) because glibc does not
>> know anything about tunables if they are disabled).
>
> By not active, do you mean where the source is not configured with
> tunables support?  That seems pointless since any glibc that did not
> have tunables would come under that category, i.e. anything before 2.25.

I would suggest to backport an addition of GLIBC_TUNABLES to 
sysdeps/generic/unsecvars.h.

Thanks,
Florian