[PATCH] setenv|putenv rc checking (lib)

[Alexey Slynko]

Matthew Dillon пишет:
    Ok, I have a few comments.

    First, if a setenv(..., 1) fails, that should be a terminal error.
    malloc should not fail for such a small allocation, period.  Many
    programs will not operate as expected if their setenv() calls fail!
    Second, the real problem here is that these functions are badly 
    designed (which isn't our fault).  Frankly, functions which
    internally malloc() small amounts of data should *NEVER* be allowed
    to fail.  That is, the failure of such malloc's should be terminal.

    Most programs do not bother checking for error codes in such cases,
    and for good reason... because they don't expect the procedures to
    ever fail unless something is really screwed up.  The only real
    issue, in fact, has to do with SUID/SGID programs where ignoring
    such failures can lead to a root compromise (which has occured in the
    past)... not because the fail naturally, but because someone 
    intentionally causes them to fail by reducing the datasize resource
    limit to a ridiculously small value.

    So the question is, do we hack all the code to pieces to check for
    failure cases which will never happen under normal operation, for these
    small-allocations, or do we try to cover the issue with a system-wide
    sysctl which defaults to causing libc to err() out.  e.g. something like:
    sysctl user.small_alloc_failure_is_fatal=1

    And then whenever libc hits one of these situations it would check
    the sysctl and do the err() automatically.  I would far prefer that,
    in fact, then hacking up all our utility code.
Yes, it was my first idea.But I agree with joerg, that the behaviuor of 
setenv in user context and library context should be different. How we 
can differ it with sysctl?