From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12056 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2012 19:12:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 12048 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2012 19:12:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:12:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HJCRAP027942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:12:27 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.21]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0HJCNpM020548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:12:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:20:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] New set auto-load-local-gdbinit + disable it by default Message-ID: <20120117191223.GA15125@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120117095552.GA6141@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120117162621.GA3883@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120117165640.GB5344@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120117174839.GA8459@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120117184244.GA13988@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:02:21 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > I wouldn't want to make such a substantial change based on a guess. OK, I can post an online survey to or if you have any other idea. > > (a) Extract first and second argument in shell, that will be several lines of > >    code. [...] > As opposed to a script named, say, secure-gdb that did that? The problem is that script needs to parse out properly the arguments (executable/core/PID) including properly recognizing --args, which is probably doable but I find it a bit fragile and definitely not easy. > Maintenance of pure additions is far easier than maintenance of local > mods that involve changes. It will become difficult wrt maintenance of GDB options parsing compatibility. But I accept it if you really oppose a new GDB option. > My point is a security audit of GDB is more than just fixing the bugs > we know of. > As is taking on the job of keeping it that way. I agree but there are no assigned resources for it. And I find better to ship program with no known security flaws (*) than to ship it with known security flaws. And after all I cannot choose the second option anyway. (*) I believe there possibly may not be any. Thanks, Jan