kensmith at cse.Buffalo.EDU
Thu Feb 26 12:47:04 PST 2004
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:20:33PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> <ADVICE COST=0>
Advice greatly appreciated.
> All of a sudden, without any warning, the time() call is likely to
> start scribbling a 0 into either "a" or "b" -- or, worse yet, into
> half of the return address or frame pointer. Who knows what the
> symptoms of that will be? Will they be deterministic? Will they
> cause ugly security vulnerabilities? Whee!
I think this is why we might be able to get away with not providing
the compatibility stuff - this part isn't quite true. Users can't
do a normal upgrade path (cvsup to -current, make buildworld/etc)
and get to a 64-bit time_t system. If you try to do an upgrade through
the normal path you break your machine at that point. To make it to
a 64-bit time_t system without breaking your system you need to follow
Garance's instructions and use his tools to do the upgrade. So there
kinda is a warning.
Does that help any, or is this still a huge mistake?
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith at cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
More information about the freebsd-sparc64