From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mon Jan 6 21:52:09 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAD51F39C9 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:52:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cmt@burggraben.net) Received: from smtp.burggraben.net (smtp.burggraben.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:510a::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.burggraben.net", Issuer "Christoph Moench-Tegeder" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47s8P52CLYz4Hf4 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:52:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cmt@burggraben.net) Received: from elch.exwg.net (elch.exwg.net [IPv6:2001:470:7120:1:127b:44ff:fe4f:148d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "elch.exwg.net", Issuer "Christoph Moench-Tegeder" (not verified)) by smtp.burggraben.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DFA0C0030D; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:52:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by elch.exwg.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4C3E139890; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:52:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:52:06 +0100 From: Christoph Moench-Tegeder To: Peter Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: session mgmt: does POSIX indeed prohibit NOOP execution? Message-ID: <20200106215206.GB2452@elch.exwg.net> Mail-Followup-To: Peter , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20200106001057.GA64665@elch.exwg.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.13.2 (2019-12-18) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47s8P52CLYz4Hf4 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of cmt@burggraben.net designates 2a01:4f8:140:510a::3 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=cmt@burggraben.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.09 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a01:4f8:140:510a::3]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[burggraben.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.a.0.1.5.0.4.1.0.8.f.4.0.1.0.a.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.6.2]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(-2.59)[ip: (-9.00), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.44), asn: 24940(-1.51), country: DE(-0.02)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 21:52:09 -0000 ## Peter (peter@citylink.dinoex.sub.org): > > Not much room to argue? > > Why that? This is not about laws you have to follow blindly whether > you understand them or not, this is all about an Outcome - a working > machine that should properly function. "Not much to argue about what behaviour is required by the standard". The standard could have been written to require different behaviour and most probably still make sense, but it wasn't; but at least it's unambiguous. After that, the discussion is rather... philosophical. Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space