[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: wip/cliqz: Request for review
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 9:54 PM Santhosh Raju <santhosh.raju%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:36 PM Santhosh Raju <santhosh.raju%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:34 AM Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> wrote:
> > >
> > > The NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE could need a bit more of an explanation. The
> > > associated Git commit only says "Fixed build in netbsd/amd64". I'd like
> > > to know what exactly the error messages were (if any) or what other
> > > reason makes these lines in the Makefile necessary. An internet browser
> > > written in C/C++ should definitely have all available security measures
> > > enabled by default.
> > >
> > This was taken directly from the www/firefox Makefile lines 35-37,
> > I am not sure why it was done in www/firefox but I have commented out
> > NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE for now in cliqz to check if anyone has issues
> > running it.
> leot@ updated me on this,
> "Regarding cliqz/firefox MPROTECT is needed probably because there is
> NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE commented out it will probably crash and
> So I guess I should keep them? Unfortunately I do not have a runtime
> environment at the moment where I can test this out.
I tested this out today with NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE commented out and
crashed with the following message
Assertion failure: [unhandlable oom] OOM in createJitRuntime, at
So I am going to uncomment the NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE for now, I shall
put up the explanation in the wip commit log.
Main Index |
Thread Index |