Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:01:04 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: logging _rtld errors Message-ID: <20111219200104.GK50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAGMYy3vbQNoiOYTRm9yqfY7WitViTo96mgU05Z=Fxk_wBfUGyg@mail.gmail.com> References: <4EEF9375.1010203@sentex.net> <CAGMYy3vbQNoiOYTRm9yqfY7WitViTo96mgU05Z=Fxk_wBfUGyg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:54:46AM -0800, Xin LI wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> wrote: > > Are there any security reasons as to why > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=142258 š([patch] rtld(1): add > > ability to log or print rtld errors) > > > > would not have been committed to the tree ? > > I've added kib@ to Cc list. > > It doesn't seem to me that this proposed change would do something > with security? Personally I think the change is reasonable (but we > may want printf be replaced with _rtld_error in rtld.c and use > LD_UTRACE there?) I also think that UTRACE part is not bad, but will object against the LD_PRINT_ERROR part. FWIW, it should use rtld_printf() instead of printf(), but this is moot point. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7vl/8ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4isYgCbBQXBybwMYLZTabB9zUzSK0w5 sWEAoLKyXt3sw4hLuj6NFBWuNqAg41PM =d15s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111219200104.GK50300>