* Samuel Thibault: > Florian Weimer, le sam. 01 janv. 2022 19:48:21 +0100, a ecrit: >> * Samuel Thibault via Libc-alpha: >> >> > + 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? > > The definition is in the random translator, which exports it in its > dynamic symbol table.
Oh, so there is a companion patch that is not reflected in the glibc sources?
