3 ms·
Yes, "can't" should be replace by "shouldn't". If there's a physical possibility, it's just a matter of time before someone finds a way, as was proved by the C
by csdvrx 5y ago
Yes, "can't" should be replace by "shouldn't".
If there's a physical possibility, it's just a matter of time before someone finds a way, as was proved by the CPU cache bugs leaking information.
- emmelaich 5y ago"shouldn't" is ambiguous as it might suggest the responsibility is with the the user of eBPF rather than internal to it. Perhaps "is designed not to" but that's a mouthful. I think we should accept "can't" and yet know the limitations of certainty.