Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:09:19 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How paranoid is Theo? (was Re: Karl fulminates, film at 11. == , thanks) Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970207105604.5960A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <E0vsf8S-0007Q2-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Warner Losh wrote: > : 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 I see your point. On the other hand, establishing that path of trust would lead to more understanding. (Yeah, I know, time is a luxury) > time isn't wasted (unless you are in firedrill mode) fixing those > buffer overflows. Your programs are just more robust :-). Here are my rankings for three dimensions of software quality: 1) Correctness 2) Performance 3) Robustness Fixing all buffer flows is: 1) Robustness 2) Correctness 3) Performance In some cases, robustness is contrary to correctness. But in this case I guess it isn't so I won't say anymore and we can just agree to disagree. Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.970207105604.5960A-100000>