* Samuel Thibault via Libc-alpha: > Florian Weimer, le sam. 01 janv. 2022 18:27:49 +0100, a ecrit: >> > @@ -33,14 +33,14 @@ __getrandom (void *buffer, size_t length, unsigned int >> > flags) >> > size_t amount_read; >> > int fd; >> > >> > - if (&trivfs_server_name && trivfs_server_name >> > - && trivfs_server_name[0] == 'r' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[1] == 'a' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[2] == 'n' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[3] == 'd' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[4] == 'o' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[5] == 'm' >> > - && trivfs_server_name[6] == '\0') >> > + if (&__trivfs_server_name && __trivfs_server_name >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[0] == 'r' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[1] == 'a' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[2] == 'n' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[3] == 'd' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[4] == 'o' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[5] == 'm' >> > + && __trivfs_server_name[6] == '\0') >> > /* We are random, don't try to read ourselves! */ >> > return length; >> >> How does this work? It's a new synbol name, so there's no definition, >> so the weak reference is always null. > > It is peeking it from the program. > > Basically the problem is that the random translator uses glibc, whose > malloc implementation started using /dev/random in glibc 2.34, thus > reading itself.
I still don't understand. Why isn't the condition always false?
