On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
Ping
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> > statement instead of exit(3)
> > inside the *main* function, to
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> > As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> > statement instead of exit(3)
> > inside the *main* function, to let the sta
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:01:02PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:
> As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
> statement instead of exit(3)
> inside the *main* function, to let the stack protector do its work.
>
> This diff removes such calls in all *src/bin/
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:18:12PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> In a more complex program with a large main() function, a call to
> exit() is an explicit statement about termination, so that even if
> someone refactors code to a subfunction, they must consider that
> it carefully.
>
> The return
> As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the
> *return* statement instead of exit(3)
> inside the *main* function, to let the stack protector do its work.
>
> This diff removes such calls in all *src/bin/* tools, except those
> who already use it. I think I didn't miss a
As suggested by deraadt@ and tobias@ it might be better to use the *return*
statement instead of exit(3)
inside the *main* function, to let the stack protector do its work.
This diff removes such calls in all *src/bin/* tools, except those who already
use it.
I think I didn't miss a call and di
