John Spencer wrote:
> its not the job of the libc to make broken code happy.
>
> i dont think its a good idea to make thousands of correct programs slower,
> just that GNU guys dont have to fix one program.
Following your argumentation, we don't need
- W^X protection in the x86 hardware,
- address space layout randomization in the kernel,
- support for -fstack-protector, -fmudflag, and -fbounds-check in gcc
and libc,
- double-free checks in libc,
- function pointer encryption in libc.
We don't need all this, because broken programs are easily identified
and all other programs are correct, right?
Read <http://cansecwest.com/csw08/csw08-holtmann.pdf>.
Bruno
