Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:05:31 +0100 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: Avleen Vig <lists-freebsd@silverwraith.com> Cc: gerarra@tin.it Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel buffer overflow Message-ID: <20040918030531.GA23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040918025217.GB54961@silverwraith.com> References: <4146316C000077FD@ims3a.cp.tin.it> <20040916235936.GO23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040918025217.GB54961@silverwraith.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:52:18PM -0700, Avleen Vig wrote: > The difference is, that calling panic(9) is not a bug, it's a designed > mechanism to panic a kernel. > The behaviour reported is NOT designed behaviour (at least, no-one has > said it is). > > Therefore, if the man wants to write a patch to fix unintended > behaviour, what's wrong with that? Extra code on a time-critical path with no sane use whatsoever. Note that anyone who adds a syscall (or a library function, for that matter) with that many arguments deserves public humiliation for terminal lack of taste, so it's not going to help anything that wouldn't be worth rm -rf...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040918030531.GA23987>