Re: Shipping Vera with 2.4

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 17:20, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:51:14PM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: 
> > 	There are also the following bugs/mis-features I saw with a brief
> > glance, correct me if I'm wrong:
> > 
> > 	* missing syscall error handling
> > 	* blocking accept
> > 	* not handling EINTR
> > 	* assuming non-blocking / short reads [ possibly in-spec, 
> > 	  perhaps better to use NON_BLOCK ].
> > 	* blocking connection write
> > 	* no error checking / short write handling on write
> > 	* server_cb locks in a tight loop on 'read' error
> > 	* looks like it creates an insecure, world writable /tmp
> > 	  Unix domain socket -> instant, huge security hazard
> > 	* doesn't do collision checking => instant DOS attack.
> > 
> This is mostly bogus; for example the EINTR handling is in the
> wrappers around the syscalls, you just didn't see it, short write
> handling also exists, and no /tmp UNIX domain socket is created
> anywhere as far as I know. Maybe in the test suite. Are there lots of
> bugs? Sure. But you're just making some of this stuff up.

Misunderstanding here Havoc. Michael was talking about my
bacon-message-connection thingo which I'm using while waiting dbus,
which I used in the argument to point out the ease of use of such an API
for ad-hoc IPC.

Michael already knows that much of these are bogus arguments for a
simple IPC, I answered to the other issues in my other mail.


/Bastien Nocera

#2  0x4205a2cc in printf ("Oh my %s\n", preferred_deity) from
/lib/i686/ printf ("Oh my %s\n", preferred_deity);
Segmentation fault

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]