Re: suenv

[Eric Haszlakiewicz <erh%nimenees.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:12:55AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 04:55:16PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Background: libpthread is tagged as not loadable by dlopen() in
> > > > NetBSD-6.0. This breaks PAM modules that are linked with -lpthread or
> > > > that dlopen() other objects linked with -lpthread. 
> > > 
> > > Don't do that, then.
> > 
> > Well, it is a shame that pam_p11 and pam_pkcs11 ceased to work on NetBSD
> > with the 6.0 release. Do you advocate it should be left as is?
> 
> I advocate that this is eminently better than pretending security software
> (that had trivially detectable buffer overruns) "worked" when in fact it
> worked, if at all, only more often than not.
> 
> If those two modules have bugs, the bugs should be fixed.  Breaking
> NetBSD to accomodate those modules' bugs is not an option! 

Is it a bug to use pthreads?
Having "trivially detectable buffer overruns" sounds like a completely
different issue than not being able to load libpthread, or are they related
somehow?

How did those modules work pre-6.0?  I thought pthreads wouldn't work
at all when loaded through dlopen because libc would have initialized 
in non-threaded mode at process startup.

eric