On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 04:33:16PM -0600, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> On Thu February 2 2006 14:09, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:29:38PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > really depends on the dietlibc, but I'd assume it
> > > > is _still_ broken on HPPA, nevertheless the glibc
> > > > is _not_ a good alternative, although it _might_
> > > > work for simple things.
> > >
> > > I guess we can find out when Joel sends results of tests?
> >
> > possible, well, testme and testfs will not
> > detect the insecurities introduced by glibc
> >
> Are there any tests available to check for these glibc problems?
I don't know of explicit tests, but it should be
possible to create some, given that somebody wants
to spend time on it ...
> If not, perhaps a pointer or two into the mail archives on
> the subject or pointer(s) to a discussion of the problems found?
http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive/vserver/msg09379.html
(there are others, just goolge for it)
IMHO dietlibc isn't a bad choice after all, although
I was initially annoyed by the change, why?
- we get smaller binaries
- we can easily test on various platforms as
diet has excellent support for cross compiling
- the resulting code is somewhat efficient, so
much simpler to debug than glibc
- we get the 'security' of statically linked
executables (which means we do not have to worry)
- we do not have to struggle with distro specific
libc modifications or features (or lack thereof)
best,
Herbert
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Received on Fri Feb 3 01:33:05 2006