the sorry saga of the talloc soname 'fix'
abartlet at samba.org
Tue Jul 7 07:10:26 GMT 2009
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 15:46 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Hi Volker,
> > If we were talking about a significant improvement, I would
> > be with you. But IMO improved error messages don't justify
> > this.
> If you had spent time trying to track down the problems that this
> patch fixed without the use of those error messages (as I tried to do
> at first), then you might rate the importance of the messages.
> We've fixed a lot of bugs thanks to those new error messages, I am
> have thus become rather fond of them!
I think Volker is right, that given we can easily (for some definition
of easily) avoid changing the ABI, then it's an easier way out of this
mess. Had you proposed a more radical solution, there would perhaps
have been less resistance :-)
But I wonder if we really have preserved the ABI. Given that
talloc_free() and talloc_steal() now does a different thing, won't it
now allow a use-after-free? This would be an ABI change (even if not a
signature change), and justify the change.
This is more than just a cleanup of possible memory leaks, isn't it?
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20090707/f587e416/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical