[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A214752.7000303@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:48:50 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, pageexec@...email.hu,
"Larry H." <research@...reption.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 15:30 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Right, so the whole point is to minimize the impact of actual bugs,
>>> right? So why not focus on fixing those actual bugs? Can we create tools
>>> to help us find such bugs faster? We use sparse for a lot of static
>>> checking, we create things like lockdep and kmemcheck to dynamically
>>> find trouble.
>>>
>>> Can we instead of working around a problem, fix the actual problem?
>> Why do cars have crashworthiness and seatbelts ? Why not fix the actual
>> problem (driving errors) ? I mean lets face it they make the vehicle
>> heavier, less fuel efficient, less fun and more annoying to use.
>
> We can't find every crash bug either, yet we still ship the kernel and
> people actually use it too.
>
> What makes these security bugs so much more important than all the other
> ones?
The fact that we can do something about them.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists