On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:05:35PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Michael Stone <email@example.com> wrote: > > What we really need is a general mechanism for either restarting or > > warning about *any* program that has a problematic library open. (Cf. > > the problems people had when a recent libssl security upgrade required > > a restart of e.g., apache-ssl -- or a locally compiled copy of > > apache-ssl. It doesn't make sense for a library maintainer to keep a > > list of problematic programs, because such a list will never be > > comprehensive. > IMHO it would be better if we fixed the nss crap so that restarting > things isn't necessary in the first place. That doesn't fix the problem Michael's referring to, which is that of long running processes affected by security bugs in the libraries they're already using. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature