Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:23:48 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd@farley.org> Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN Message-ID: <20070512152347.GA28834@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070512160859.T63806@fledge.watson.org> References: <20070505163707.J6670@thor.farley.org> <20070505221125.GA50439@nagual.pp.ru> <20070506091835.A43775@besplex.bde.org> <20070508162458.G6015@baba.farley.org> <20070508222521.GA59534@nagual.pp.ru> <20070509200000.B56490@besplex.bde.org> <20070510184447.H4969@baba.farley.org> <20070511003443.GA6422@nagual.pp.ru> <20070511182126.U9004@baba.farley.org> <20070512160859.T63806@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 04:10:44PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > Actually, I'm not convinced that crashing the program isn't the right > answer. If an application corrupts memory managed by libc or other > libraries, crashing is generally considered an entirely acceptable failure > mode. It can be corruption, yes, but it can be intentional action too. Many programs directly perform environ clearing or modifications. In case it will be directly allowed to put anything there, I would insist of removing not errx() but even warnx(), but situation is unclear. POSIX forbids modifying environ directly, but C99 have getenv() only and allows direct modification of environ, so what happens depends on standard and common practice. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070512152347.GA28834>