Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 3/18/06, Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the change only affects buggy apps (as Thomas says), then it seems
> completely obvious to me that the change should be made.

But the app isn't buggy, it's just not coded to some arbitrary spec.
Further, an arbitrary spec that *the kernel didn't implement*. The app
author could very well have been competent and tested that behavior in
a ten line program (I do that sort of code *all the time* to test
corner cases that aren't clear in man pages). Once tested, they found
out -1 is an effectively infinite timeout, went "Hey, cool, that makes
sense", and went on with their day.

You're now arguing that we should break apps -- possibly well tested
apps -- because they didn't implement a spec that the kernel itself
wasn't implementing.

That's just nuts.

> 3. Correct applications are unaffected.

You're assuming that the apps that we'd break are incorrect. That's a
big assumption. Try imagining instead that it's a well-tested app that
passed QA with flying colors on a previous version of the kernel. They
exist. Honest.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux