| 1 |
Hello, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marc Joliet <marcec@×××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Am Freitag, 10. November 2017, 10:54:53 CET schrieb Jorge Almeida: |
| 6 |
>>> I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system (glibc?) doesn't know |
| 7 |
>>> about it. I also tried to compile against musl, same result. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> It seems as though it is simply not implemented, I found a variety of links |
| 12 |
>> that all support this: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> https://stackoverflow.com/a/40162721 |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38322363/when-will-the-safe-string-functions-of-c11-be-part-of-glibc |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/C11Status (which states that Annex K is not |
| 19 |
>> implemented) |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> OK, thanks. The last link even suggests that Annex K should be |
| 24 |
> deprecated. I suppose this people don't care about security at all. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm having trouble finding the article again, but these functions look |
| 28 |
very similar to Microsoft's extensions to the C standard. There is a |
| 29 |
good case to be made that they are counterproductive. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Of course, what would really solve the optimize-into-oblivion problem |
| 32 |
> is a pragma that when invoked on a particular block of code (maybe |
| 33 |
> only a function definition) would tell the compiler to do what the |
| 34 |
> programmer says rather than viewing a function as a kind of black box. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
This would probably be useful. It may be wise to reimplement important |
| 38 |
functionality. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Cheers, |
| 41 |
R0b0t1 |
Archives