From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 10 01:14:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA11050 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:14:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA11004 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:13:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/CET-v2.2) with SMTP id JAA18048; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:13:07 GMT Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:13:07 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Jamie Bowden cc: John Peter DeVale , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Netcards In-Reply-To: <199801091427.JAA07552@gatekeeper.itribe.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk I'm firmly in the camp that correctness is a higher priority than robustness. A user process should be terminated quickly when it does something wrong. This ends up giving us far higher quality code than having the kernel sweeping possibly insidious bugs under the carpet. These include NULL value errors and double FREEs. I agree with your later statements that the kernel should be protected from crashing from junk values going into system calls. Regards, Mike Hancock -- michaelh@cet.co.jp http://www.cet.co.jp CET Inc., Daiichi Kasuya BLDG 8F 2-5-12, Higashi Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105 Japan Tel: +81-3-3437-1761 Fax: +81-3-3437-1766