From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 17 05:29:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EFE16A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:29:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (SYDNEYPACIFIC-THREE-EIGHTY-SEVEN.MIT.EDU
	[18.95.6.132])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCF943D3F
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:29:11 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by VARK.homeunix.com (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8H5TAjV000896;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by VARK.homeunix.com (8.13.1/8.12.10/Submit) id i8H5TAE6000895;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:29:10 -0400
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: gerarra@tin.it
Message-ID: <20040917052910.GA858@VARK.homeunix.com>
Mail-Followup-To: gerarra@tin.it, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <4146316C00007833@ims3a.cp.tin.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4146316C00007833@ims3a.cp.tin.it>
cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:29:11 -0000

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004, gerarra@tin.it wrote:
> 
> >
> >If we put your patch in but as a KASSERT then anyone ruinning with 
> >debugging turned on
> >(and no-one in their right mind would write a kernel module without 
> >turning on debugging, right?)
> >will immediatly find the problem.
> >
> 
> What you can't understand is that having a limit about arguments is wrong
> (it's not documented too). Why limiting to 8 and not to 20? or 65? i don't
> understand...
> In my opinion a patch would be better (and even quicker respect KASSERT).

Hey, until recently, Linux on i386 required a special case for any
syscall with over 4 arguments.  Supporting 8 makes us twice as good!  ;-)