On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 00:14:54 -0500 (EST)
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > This is Linux-Kernel. Each developer is on their own on how they pay the
> > their bills. The question is... Why not accept a *driver* that *works* but
> > the source doesn't look so good?
>
> Because this "works" may very well include exploitable buffer overruns in
> kernel mode. I had seen that - ioctl() assuming that nobody would pass
And: bad code spreads. Anyone who has done infrastructure change in the
kernel sees this: people copy (presumed) working code.
Hence I now lean towards "change EVERYTHING" rather than "wrap old source, add
new", and "fix even if not broken", eg. my "set_bit needs a long" patch which
also changed x86-specific code (where it doesn't matter).
Cheers,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:31 EST