Re: [PATCH] proxy memory objects

Marcus Brinkmann <[email protected]> writes:

> The interface does allow it.  The implementation does not.

I'm complaining about the patch as a whole; I think it should be
implemented right, especially since it's not too hard to do.

> Look, we know aout this security hole for a long time now.  I would like to
> fix it, and I am willing to compromise on the implementation side of the
> issue in favor of security.  If someone else is interested to make a broader
> implementation, I welcome that, but I don't have time nor interest in that
> right now.

The point is that fixing this particular point--making it accept
secondary proxies--is very easy to do, so it's worth doing.  The other
stuff is harder, and I have no objection to postponing it, which is
why this is the only thing I wrote about.