11 ms·
I think you may be misunderstanding the core point. Linus describes two choices: 1) add warnings now to give developers a year to fix security issues, then add
by jph 9y ago
I think you may be misunderstanding the core point.
Linus describes two choices: 1) add warnings now to give developers a year to fix security issues, then add panic 2) skip warnings, add panic now, and start crashing everything for all users.
For example the chance of a kernel bounds error leading to an actual kernel security breach is vanishingly small in practice. This is because the vast majority of kernel bounds errors are just bugs, not actual kernel security breaches that harm an actual user. Whereas an immediate kernel panic will harm a user immediately 100% of the time.
If you prefer to run an immediate-panic system, or you have a different kind of threat model, then you can choose to catch the warnings and do your own panic, alerting, shutdown, etc.
- munin 9y agoIsn't this the "fallback mode" that Kees describes? It honestly seems like Linus latches on to one sentence that he doesn't like, then melts down over it. It really seems like you should walk on very fine eggshells around him, lest he find something that angers him and then waste a lot of energy writing an expletive laced screed at something adjacent to your point.
- baby 9y agoProbably the toxic behavior of the security community has gotten to some people, including Linus. That should be a lesson to anyone in the field that this is how you create monsters.
- PakG1 9y agoIt seems that Linus himself can naturally be quite toxic without prompting from the mailing list thread examples I've seen...
- monocasa 9y agoI haven't seen a non prompted Linus rant, personally.
- PakG1 9y agoWhat I mean by without prompting is that in all the cases I've seen, nobody's being toxic towards him. He does look prompted by the apparent stupidity that exists all around him though. I'll admit that sometimes I get annoyed by people who are less intelligent than I am, it's something I've been working on for some time. But he's on another level. :)
- monocasa 9y agoYou're missing the context of the rest of the discussion that might have (or might should have) been going on for months. A key component of Linus's job is to arbitrate high level disagreements on the lkml. He tends to use strong language only when something should have never reached the level of discussion that he participates in at all.
- mmjaa 9y agoAlso (having followed him for decades now), I think its very important to remember that Linus lives and dies by the maxim: get the kernel working, or gtfo. Things which intentionally destroy a running instance of Linux, or in some way render the kernel less valuable to the end-user really, really piss Linus off - in this context. I believe this is a key aspect of the Linux evolution: the only people of any value and import, feelings-wise, are the users. Not the developers, not security experts, and so on. He has done everything to ensure that the focus stays on working code, and not feelings, but .. when he has to .. he sure climbs the tree and jumps hard on anyone trying to cut into this substance of the Linux zeitgeist. Make it valuable to the user, or gtfo.