We can't assume sock_cloexec and pipe2 are bound together as the former
defines are found in glibc only while the latter are a combo of kernel
headers and glibc. So if we do a runtime detection of SOCK_CLOEXEC, but
pipe2() is a stub inside of glibc, we hit a problem. For example:
main()
{
getgrnam("portage");
if (!popen("ls", "r"))
perror("popen()");
}
getgrnam() will detect that the kernel supports SOCK_CLOEXEC and then set
both __have_sock_cloexec and __have_pipe2 to true. But if glibc was built
against older kernel headers where __NR_pipe2 does not exist, glibc will
have a ENOSYS stub for it. So popen() will always fail as glibc assumes
pipe2() works.
While this isn't too much of an issue for some arches as they added the
functionality to the kernel at the same time, not all arches are that
lucky.
Since the code already has dedicated names for each feature, delete the
defines wiring these three features together and make each one a proper
dedicated knob.
We've been carrying this in Gentoo since glibc-2.9.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
When unmapping the first object in a namespace, the runtime linker
did not update the externally visible pointer. This resulted in
debuggers seeing pointers to memory that had been freed.
The original runtime linker auditing interface described
by Solaris allows the 5th argument of la_pltenter() to be
modified. This patch cleans up the ldsodefs.h definitions
such that the 5th argument is not constant.
At one point the 5th argument *was* constant but this was
changed with commit 2413fdba7a.
This patch updates alpha, ia64, mips, sh and sparc with similar
changes.
2012-08-15 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com>
[BZ #14195]
* sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/strcmp-sssse3.S: Fix
segmentation fault for a case of two empty input strings.
* string/test-strncasecmp.c (check1): Renamed to...
(bz12205): ...this.
(bz14195): Add new testcase for two empty input strings and N > 0.
(test_main): Call new testcase, adapt for renamed function.
Pretty sure we require recent enough versions of gcc/binutils to make this
check pointless. I can't any logs in the last few years where this check
didn't return "yes".
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Looks like a wart copied from the i386 code base. The only place I can
find that checks this is the i386 sysdep.h, and even then this looks like
a check that should get thrown away as obsolete ...
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
