This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Tunables-related security regression

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:53:40 +0100
Subject: Re: Tunables-related security regression
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <e9cbe93c-e788-f67c-bfce-4c8feda220e0@redhat.com> <1128f265-daf6-be4c-e84b-2eeeb3455baa@gotplt.org>

On 01/23/2017 11:52 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

We probably should put GLIBC_TUNABLES into category (1) if tunables are
*not* active (currently, it's in category (3) because glibc does not
know anything about tunables if they are disabled).


By not active, do you mean where the source is not configured with
tunables support?  That seems pointless since any glibc that did not
have tunables would come under that category, i.e. anything before 2.25.

I would suggest to backport an addition of GLIBC_TUNABLES tosysdeps/generic/unsecvars.h.


Thanks,
Florian

References:
- Tunables-related security regression
  - From: Florian Weimer
- Re: Tunables-related security regression
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]