> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:56:47 +0200 > From: Julien Cristau <[email protected]> > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 13:34:44 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:48:16 +0200 > > > From: Julien Cristau <[email protected]> > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 23:25:22 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Julien Cristau <[email protected]> > > > > > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:08:28 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > Avoids 'implicit function declaration' build error on gnu/kfreebsd. > > > > > > > > That's seriously backwards. You should make sure the right headers > > > > get included such that there is a proper function declaration. Or, as > > > > a last a resort, if the header files for your OS are broken beyond > > > > repair, provide a function declaration yourself. But no using > > > > issetugid() when it is available is a security risk. > > > > > > > The same thing came up last year for xlib, the answer I got then was > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2012/04/msg00312.html > > > With the patch the HAVE_GETRESUID path is used instead. > > > > The HAVE_GETRESUID path is less secure. See: > > > > <http://www.shmoo.com/mail/bugtraq/jul98/msg00124.html> > > > > for a discussion. Not making available issetugid() on GNU/kFreeBSD is > > a bad decision. > > After one more prod they've added the declaration. So consider this > patch withdrawn. Thanks!
Excellent! _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
