Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 21:39:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <3EB88E0D.D8AA9B2F@mindspring.com> References: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <20030505232012.GC21953@madman.celabo.org> <20030506152542.GC77708@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jacques A. Vidrine" wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:56:06AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: > > There is no guarantee that you 'fix' the port by hiding the symbol. You > > may as well break it. This depends on the function itself and on the > > internal relationships in libc. You have to go through each individual > > port and see what happens anyway. > > Please explain. I _am_ guaranteed that keeping the port from hijacking > strlcpy calls in libc will not break the port. How could the port rely > on the internals of libc? Have you looked at the "electric fence" port lately? -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EB88E0D.D8AA9B2F>