On 10/22/2010 02:18 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/22/2010 01:22 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Please stop top-posting. It makes it very hard to reply to you. >>>> >>>> On 10/21/2010 09:01 PM, Alexey Skidanov wrote: >>>>> [SNIP] >>>>> Regarding the ODR. You are absolutly right. But what about a MULTIPLE variable >>>>> initialization. Is it correct behaviour according to standard? >>>> >>>> I don't know what you mean by a "MULTIPLE variable initialization". >>> I believe he means the constructor running multiple times (the >>> antithesis of the destructor running multiple times). >> >> Well, unless there's a bug you can't get that unless you break the >> ODR. > > Am I the only guy under the impression that a Microsoft platform can > suffer from Insecure Library Loading, while the Linux platform can > suffer from Insecure Library Unloading due to ABI, ODR, and > RTLD_GLOBAL? I have no idea. > RTFM and and ODR are great - until the attacker causes SELinux (or > other important sub system) to crash due to this 'documented feature'. > Shared data segments are evil and should not be the default :/ Probably, but it's too late for that. And it's nothing to do with gcc. Andrew.
