Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:53:55 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.org>, standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Recent POSIX.1-2001 implementation of strtol(3) breaks POLA (was: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/periodic/security 550.ipfwlimit 650.ip6fwlimit) Message-ID: <20011214145355.B36368@gvr.gvr.org> In-Reply-To: <20011214154506.A79266@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:45:07PM %2B0200 References: <200112140858.fBE8wL596075@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011214115711.A34932@gvr.gvr.org> <20011214135243.B64853@sunbay.com> <20011214125438.A35615@gvr.gvr.org> <20011214142928.A69958@sunbay.com> <20011214154506.A79266@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:45:07PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > So while the current behavior of strtol() is accepted by > POSIX, I suggest that we don't return [EINVAL] for an > empty subject case, as it's not required, and as could > be seen from the above in against POLA. This should > fix it. Seems a good idea. Good hunting, btw! -Guido To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011214145355.B36368>