Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:53:39 +0200 From: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org> To: "O'Connor, Daniel" <darius@dons.net.au> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gettimeofday((void *)-1, NULL) implicates core dump on recent FreeBSD 11-CURRENT Message-ID: <CAPQ4ffuuaiWGUthEhux2VrK6ZyHDT=0xd9z8k8f11N=6shdUng@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <94BCDA65-5B86-4329-A312-4CB16E847B69@dons.net.au> References: <CAPQ4ffuTcN_ytcH7GPY0s6OqWK9qo6MGaVZhOB%2B0ojWfd=fNCg@mail.gmail.com> <201507072241.t67MfsX5085860@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <94BCDA65-5B86-4329-A312-4CB16E847B69@dons.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/8/15, O'Connor, Daniel <darius@dons.net.au> wrote: > >> On 8 Jul 2015, at 08:11, Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> >> wrote: >> Perhaps the test was (erroneously) written to assume that >> gettimeofday() was a system call, and could therefore detect invalid >> pointers and return [EFAULT]. This has not been the case for some >> time. (In HEAD, not since r237434, which is three years ago.) > > In defence of the test, the man page says it can return EFAULT. That's fine, but why changed the behaviour since 2015. May 27.? I have an older FreeBSD/HardenedBSD install, where this test passing. See some previous email in this thread. > > (IMO the man page and test should change..) > > -- > Daniel O'Connor > "The nice thing about standards is that there > are so many of them to choose from." > -- Andrew Tanenbaum > GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPQ4ffuuaiWGUthEhux2VrK6ZyHDT=0xd9z8k8f11N=6shdUng>