Re: PATCH: overflow behavior in malloc(9)

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 06:59:12AM +, Doug Hogan wrote: > -objects and checks for arithmetic overflow. > +objects and calls > +.Xr panic 9 > +on arithmetic overflow. That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case. I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something more like this inst

PATCH: Avoid useless if != NULL check on BUF_MEM_free() in LibreSSL

BUF_MEM_free() only has one parameter and it returns immediately if it is NULL. Index: src/crypto/asn1/a_d2i_fp.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libssl/src/crypto/asn1/a_d2i_fp.c,v retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -p -d -r1.11 a_d2i_fp.c

Re: PATCH: overflow behavior in malloc(9)

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 06:59:12AM +, Doug Hogan wrote: > Make it clear what check implies for mallocarray. Thanks to dlg@ for > pointing this behavior out. > some take this, please. jmc > > Index: share/man/man9/malloc.9 > ==

PATCH: Remove useless if !NULL check before BIO_free() in LibreSSL

BIO_free() returns immediately when the sole input is NULL. Index: lib/libssl/src/apps/apps.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libssl/src/apps/apps.c,v retrieving revision 1.68 diff -u -p -d -r1.68 apps.c --- lib/libssl/src/apps/apps.c 19

PATCH: reallocarray in a few places in sys/

Use reallocarray() in a few places in sys. Index: sys/arch/hppa/stand/mkboot/mkboot.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/hppa/stand/mkboot/mkboot.c,v retrieving revision 1.18 diff -u -p -d -r1.18 mkboot.c --- sys/arch/hppa/stand/mkboot/

LibreSSL 2.0.3 released

We have released an update, LibreSSL 2.0.3 - which should be arriving in the LibreSSL directory of an OpenBSD mirror near you very soon. This release includes a number of portability fixes based on the the feedback w

Re: res_random.c: 'static' is not at beginning of declaration

revision 1.21 date: 2014/07/20 04:22:34; author: guenther; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2; commitid: x7aBoxPF8nZvW5Z0; >From ISO/IEC 9899:1999 and 9899:201x, 6.11.5 - Storage-class specifiers: The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the beginning of the declaration specifier

/etc/rc nit

Shouldn't /etc/rc check for executable bits in these two cases? Index: etc/rc === RCS file: /var/cvsync/src/etc/rc,v retrieving revision 1.437 diff -u -p -r1.437 rc --- etc/rc 19 Jul 2014 21:27:16 - 1.437 +++ etc/rc

finger: Merge extern.h and finger.h

Hi, This patch merges finger.h and extern.h, has they are always included together. It also declares static functions as such and removes them from the prototype list. Index: finger.c === RCS file: /home/tleguern/proj/perso/cvs/src/u

finger: Add a dedicated usage()

Hi, This patch adds a dedicated usage() function to finger(1), like most other utilities do. It also removes the unnecessary declaration of optind. Index: finger.c === RCS file: /home/tleguern/proj/perso/cvs/src/usr.bin/finger/finge

PATCH: overflow behavior in malloc(9)

Make it clear what check implies for mallocarray. Thanks to dlg@ for pointing this behavior out. Index: share/man/man9/malloc.9 === RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man9/malloc.9,v retrieving revision 1.56 diff -u -p -d -r1.56 malloc.9