Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements

* Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements
@ 2003-05-30  8:12 Paolo Ciarrocchi
  2003-05-30  8:20 ` cosmos
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Ciarrocchi @ 2003-05-30  8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: albert; +Cc: rml, linux-kernel

>>> Well, since I read Albert Cahalan's comment in
>>> Debian bug #172735 [1] I understand the people
>>> maintaining a different branch...
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> That bug is fixed in the official tree, fyi.
>> A segfault, as you said, is always a bug.
>> An error message is displayed.
>
>You asked for it...
>
>Nice cheapshot there. So, if I remove some
>critical kernel interfaces from your system,
>nothing should crash? How about I take out
>a few choice system calls or a chunk of libc?

It is not the same thing, I think that you
agree on that, too.

>(note: the "bug" is not exploitable)
>
>Face it. For nearly a decade, /proc has been
>a critical kernel interface. This isn't 1991.
>(embedded systems excepted; they don't use procps)
>
>That said, I may do something about the issue
>simply to please users with messed-up systems.

In my opinion, you have to do something about
the issue, because it is a bug, it is not
a missing feature. But this is just my opinion,
you are the maintainer, you take decisions.

>> Once that bug is fixed, he will probably find
>> that the inability to read files in /proc also
>> causes a crash. Such is the problem with this
>> duplicated effort. It sucks.
>
>I could tell you about some inputs that
>make your programs crash... Nah. Find them
>yourself. I wait for your screams. >:-)

'Find them yourself', nice answer ;-(
It is a pity read this kind of comment,
I still don't understand the reasons 
of this duplications of code and the reason
of this kind of silly sarcastic remarks.

>You finally fixed a SEGV that I fixed well
>over a year ago. Congradulations. You have
>others to fix, and a minor (?) security
>issue as well. Have fun.

Again, you know there is a problem but you
don't say anything about it.
You do not want to fix it, don't you ?
This is fine with me (even if it is hard to 
understand the reason), but you are just
/wrong/ when you know about a problem and
don't provide information about it.
Again, this is just my opinion...

>Oooh... I think you have an exploitable
>buffer overflow as well. Anybody running
>his procps as an i386 binary on IA-64?

Ditto.

Ciao,
          Paolo

-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread