From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4013 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Initial work on post-1.0 roadmap Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:27:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20130905182703.GC20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20130828054629.GA29224@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130830170356.GN20515@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1378379653.1985.4@driftwood> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1378405637 31443 80.91.229.3 (5 Sep 2013 18:27:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 18:27:17 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4017-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Sep 05 20:27:18 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VHeH0-0000FZ-G1 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 20:27:18 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9519 invoked by uid 550); 5 Sep 2013 18:27:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 9508 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2013 18:27:16 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1378379653.1985.4@driftwood> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4013 Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:14:13AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 08/30/2013 12:03:57 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:46:30AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > >> This message is purely some notes for tracking and possible > >discussion > >> of things to do after musl 1.0 is released. I'm leaning towards (but > >> undecided) maintaining separate 1.0.x and 1.1.x branches after > >the 1.0 > >> release, the 1.0.x being just bug-fixes and backports of > >non-invasive > >> changes, and real development taking place in the 1.1.x series. The > >> below items should probably then be arranged into a 1.1.x-series > >> roadmap based on how much seems reasonable to get done per release > >> (roughly, per month), and which features are in the highest demand. > > > >One more item (well, a big multi-part item): > > > >Security features -- RELRO processing in the dynamic linker, a > >replacement for _FORTIFY_SOURCE (as a layer on top of libc's headers > >rather than part of libc's headers), making it possible to build libc > >itself with stack-protector, possibly nonstandard interfaces needed > >for using kernel security features well, adapting malloc's footer > >bookkeeping to make it difficult to preserve footer when performing > >buffer overflows, ... > > This isn't on the wiki...? Indeed, the items that aren't yet there should be added to Open Issues, and a new Roadmap section for post-1.0 work should be added. I'll try to get to that soon. Rich