Re: Implementing "Extensions to the C Library" (ISO/IEC WG14 N1172)

["Richard Viney" <richard dot viney at gmail dot com>]

See below.

Best Regards,
Richard

On 17/09/2007, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Richard Viney wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm interested to know if anyone's known to be working on an
> > unofficial implementation of the C library extensions in ISO/IEC WG14
> > N1172?
> >
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1172.pdf
>
> The current version is N1225.

Thank you for alerting me to the updated version.

> > It proposes a number of new types and methods that make writing secure
> > C code easier. A lot of it is already implemented as an optional
>
> No, they make retrofitting large amounts of existing insecure code
> (without removing arbitrary limits in that code but avoiding undefined
> behavior in some cases when those limits are exceeded) easier.

Yes you're right part of it is to help with securing existing code
without requiring significant rewriting, but it also includes
functions that improve other things in the standard library, like
localtime_s() and tmpfile_s(). Obviously supporting these extensions
to the standard library in glibc would also help with porting code
from the Windows world that use them, is this the plan? Or are the
extensions in N1225 not going to be supported unless they're put into
the official standard?

> The functions to make writing new secure code easier are those in DTR
> 24731-2 (N1248), not 24731-1.  The functions in 24731-2 are based on
> existing prior art in glibc.

Thanks I will read this document also. I immediately see that it
offers a different and arguably better solution to many of the same
problems addressed by N1225, such as asprintf() instead of
sprintf_s(). Is there a reluctance to support both solutions?

>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
>