From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Tue Jan 7 02:13:42 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 ED06C1EE79B for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:13:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from uucp.dinoex.org (uucp.dinoex.sub.de [IPv6:2001:1440:5001:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "uucp.dinoex.sub.de", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47sGBs1RmLz4Y66 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:13:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from uucp.dinoex.sub.de (uucp.dinoex.org [185.220.148.12]) by uucp.dinoex.org (8.16.0.41/8.16.0.41) with ESMTPS id 0072D4qS049166 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:13:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: X-Authentication-Warning: uucp.dinoex.sub.de: Host uucp.dinoex.org [185.220.148.12] claimed to be uucp.dinoex.sub.de Received: from citylink.dinoex.sub.org (uucp@localhost) by uucp.dinoex.sub.de (8.16.0.41/8.16.0.41/Submit) with UUCP id 0072D410049165 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:13:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from gate.oper.dinoex.org (gate-e [192.168.98.2]) by citylink.dinoex.sub.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00725PsS004231 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:05:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: from gate.oper.dinoex.org (gate-e [192.168.98.2]) by gate.oper.dinoex.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0072415l003911 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:04:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by gate.oper.dinoex.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 007241aG003910 for freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 03:04:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: gate.oper.dinoex.org: news set sender to li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org using -f From: Peter Subject: Fwd: Re: session mgmt: does POSIX indeed prohibit NOOP execution? Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 02:52:27 +0100 Organization: n/a Message-ID: References: <20200106001057.GA64665@elch.exwg.net> <20200106215206.GB2452@elch.exwg.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: oper.dinoex.de; logging-data="977"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@citylink.dinoex.sub.org" User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (FreeBSD) Sender: li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: uucp.dinoex.sub.de; Sender-ip: 185.220.148.12; Sender-helo: uucp.dinoex.sub.de; ) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (uucp.dinoex.org [185.220.148.12]); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 03:13:08 +0100 (CET) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47sGBs1RmLz4Y66 X-Spamd-Bar: +++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org has no SPF policy when checking 2001:1440:5001:1::2) smtp.mailfrom=li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [5.45 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(1.00)[0.998,0]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.999,0]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.25)[ip: (0.68), ipnet: 2001:1440::/32(0.34), asn: 8469(0.27), country: DE(-0.02)]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[peter@citylink.dinoex.sub.org,li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sub.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8469, ipnet:2001:1440::/32, country:DE]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[peter@citylink.dinoex.sub.org,li-fbsd@citylink.dinoex.sub.org]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+] 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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 02:13:43 -0000 > > 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. It is not the standard that concerns me, it is *failure* that concerns me. When I try to run a daemon from the base OS (in the orderly way, via daemon command), and it just DOES NOT WORK, and I need to find out and look into it what's actually wrong, then for me that's not philosophy, that's a failure that needs some effort to fix. And I dont want such issues, and, more important, I don't want other people to run into the same issue again! (Not sure what is so difficult to understand with that.) In any case, either the base system has a flaw, or the syscall has a flaw, or the Posix has a flaw. I don't care which, You're free to choose, But if you instead think that flaws are not allowed to exist because Posix is perfect, and therefore the much better solution is to just bully the people who happen to run into the flaws, well, thats also okay. rgds, PMc