Re: security alerts in busybox

On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 at 22:29, Aaro Koskinen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 08:00:55PM +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 07:30:22PM +0200, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > > > (1) These are trivial alerts, therefore I faced it first to provide an
> > > > example. [...] And the second main question is straightforward: (2)
> > > > does this fix worth 177 bytes? In relative terms it is 150 ppm
> > > > compared with the full size footprint. In terms of certifications is a
> > > > solid step towards peace of mind.
> > >
> > > IMHO, it does not make sense to churn the code just to silence some
> > > random unnamed tool without any real proper reason, and it certainly
> > > does not give any piece of mind.
> >
> > I read: "random unnamed tool" -- I see what is the information you are
> > seeking for... LOL
>
> I'm not seeking any information, I just think Busybox should ignore your
> tool and your patch altogether.
>

This is your opinion and you are free to express it. And I am free to ignore it.

However for the sake of the truth, it is not "my" tool, it is open
source and widely adopted in companies.

Again, because you did not get the main points:

1. I don't care about your consensus and I do not need it, because
GPLv2 is enough

and

2. I don't need to share anything else apart from the code changes
because GPLv2.

So, if you did not like Eric Raymon, then GPLv2 by Richard Stalmann
and the music is the same, again.

Best regards, R-