From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Feb  6 17:30:11 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21220
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21207
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] 
	by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1)
	id E0vsf8S-0007Q2-00; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:29:52 -0700
To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: How paranoid is Theo? (was Re: Karl fulminates, film at 11. == , thanks) 
Cc: current@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Feb 1997 10:17:21 +0900."
		<Pine.SV4.3.95.970207101328.5763A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> 
References: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970207101328.5763A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>  
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:29:51 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Message-Id: <E0vsf8S-0007Q2-00@rover.village.org>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <Pine.SV4.3.95.970207101328.5763A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> Michael Hancock writes:
: Cool.  You can establish a contract of trust between called functions and
: calling functions and not waste time fixing things that aren't
: exploitable.

That's true to a point, but it takes a lot of time, sometimes, to
establish that path of trust, especially in a large program.  And the
time isn't wasted (unless you are in firedrill mode) fixing those
buffer overflows.  Your programs are just more robust :-).

Warner