[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]
Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Tim Jansen wrote:
> > So if only some programs use the 'dot-files' and the other still use the
> > crappy text interface we still have the old problem for scripts, only with a
> > much larger effort.
> Folks, could we please deep-six the "ASCII is tough" mentality? Idea of
> native-endian data is so broken that it's not even funny. Exercise:
> try to export such thing over the network. Another one: try to use
> that in a shell script. One more: try to do it portably in Perl script.
> It had been tried. Many times. It had backfired 100 times out 100.
> We have the same idiocy to thank for fun trying to move a disk with UFS
> volume from Solaris sparc to Solaris x86. We have the same idiocy to
> thank for a lot of ugliness in X.
> At the very least, use canonical bytesex and field sizes. Anything less
> is just begging for trouble. And in case of procfs or its equivalents,
> _use_ the_ _damn_ _ASCII_ _representations_. scanf(3) is there for
> purpose.

And the purpose of scanf in system level applications is to introduce
opportunities for buffer overruns and string formatting bugs.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.126 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site