linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.29

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090327152221.GA25234@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:21 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:08:11PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:

> Not checking for errors is not "progress" its indiscipline aided by
> languages and tools that permit it to occur without issuing errors. It's
> why software "engineering" is at best approaching early 1950's real
> engineering practice ("hey gee we should test this stuff") and has yet to
> grow up and get anywhere into the world of real engineering and quality.

No. Not *having* to check for errors in the cases that you care about is 
progress. How much of the core kernel actually deals with kmalloc 
failures sensibly? Some things just aren't worth it.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/