Re: [PATCH 2/2] regex: test for buffer overrun

On 10 Apr 2013, Carlos O'Donell verbalised: > On 03/31/2013 11:11 AM, Nix wrote: >> Perhaps this failure is known, but I would say that all is not yet well >> in the state of regex. > > All is *not* well in the state of regex. It is a known issue that there > are s

Re: [PATCH 2/2] regex: test for buffer overrun

On 30 Jan 2013, Paul Eggert spake thusly: > + /* This test is from glibc bug 15078. > + The test case is from Andreas Schwab in > + > . > + */ > +

Re: relocatable by default?

On 3 Oct 2007, Bruno Haible verbalised: > Sylvain Beucler wrote: >> What security issues, by the way? I (re)read the docs but I don't see >> what it is. > > No no, I won't tell anyone how the exploit works :-) But there is an exploit. There's an even more obvious and trivial DoS attack. (The prob

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

On 8 Jun 2007, Jeremy Linton verbalised: > James Youngman wrote: >> On 6/8/07, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I'd say this behaviour violates the principle of least astonishment, at >>> least. Mind you, avoiding it does seem like it could be

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

On 8 Jun 2007, James Youngman said: > On 6/8/07, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd say this behaviour violates the principle of least astonishment, at >> least. Mind you, avoiding it does seem like it could be expensive: [...] > > Maybe. For the issue-diagnost

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

On 8 Jun 2007, Jan-Benedict Glaw stated: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 00:14:34 +0100, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's somewhat unusual for applications to accept double-format data over >> the network or from files; but modulo byte-swapping, has anyone *ever* >> se

Re: glibc segfault on "special" long double values is _ok_!?

On 7 Jun 2007, Tor Myklebust outgrape: > And the second variant can segfault if you replace 'float' by 'long > double' (changing the format string appropriately) and you feed it > something bad. Why is this a good thing? It's somewhat unusual for applications to accept double-format data over the

Re: converting gnulib: cvs to git

On 4 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert outgrape: > Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I find these markers useful when comparing file dates when updating >> old software, and I think it would be a clear disadvantage if moving >> to git won't make the same thing possible. > > They are controversi

Re: gnulib broken on systems lacking fchdir

On 29 Nov 2006, Matthew Woehlke told this: > (...which, aside from the infamous NSK/OSS you've all come to hate me > for :-) reportedly includes OS/2. According to "The Linux Programmer's > Manual" (i.e. 'man fchdir'), "The fchdir call is compatible with SVr4, > 4.4BSD and X/OPEN". Note the conspic

[PATCH] gnulib's test for the O_NOATIME open flag is broken

(I've gone a bit further and am building in a temporary loopback filesystem so I can control the mount options precisely, as well as making sure I'm not on NFS, as NFS caching seems to annoy some of the coreutils tests at times.) This patch fixes it. 2006-11-25 Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&