From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 18 03:05:34 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 1FD6B16A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:05:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from www.linux.org.uk (parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
	[195.92.249.252])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92AE243D55
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:05:33 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from viro@www.linux.org.uk)
Received: from viro by www.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C8VXY-0001zu-15; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:05:32 +0100
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:05:31 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Avleen Vig <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com>
Message-ID: <20040918030531.GA23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <4146316C000077FD@ims3a.cp.tin.it>
	<20040916235936.GO23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
	<20040918025217.GB54961@silverwraith.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040918025217.GB54961@silverwraith.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: <viro@www.linux.org.uk>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: gerarra@tin.it
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: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:05:34 -0000

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:52:18PM -0700, Avleen Vig wrote:
> The difference is, that calling panic(9) is not a bug, it's a designed
> mechanism to panic a kernel.
> The behaviour reported is NOT designed behaviour (at least, no-one has
> said it is).
> 
> Therefore, if the man wants to write a patch to fix unintended
> behaviour, what's wrong with that?

Extra code on a time-critical path with no sane use whatsoever.  Note
that anyone who adds a syscall (or a library function, for that matter)
with that many arguments deserves public humiliation for terminal lack
of taste, so it's not going to help anything that wouldn't be worth
rm -rf...