[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 10:35, Mike Porter wrote:
> > But that foregoes the point that the code is far more complex and harder
> > to make 'obviously correct', a concept that *does* translate well to
> > userspace.
> One point is that 'obviously correct' is much harder to 'prove' for
> threads (or processes with shared memory) than you might think.
> With a state machine, you can 'prove' that object accesses won't
> conflict much more easily. With a threaded or process based model,
> you have to spend considerable time thinking about multiple readers
> and writers and locking.
> One metric I use to evaluate program complexity is how big of a
> headache I get when trying to prove something "correct".
> Multi-process or multi-threaded code hurts more than a well written
> state machine.

The same applies to security though. There's programmers out there we're
unwilling to give the tools to create race conditions, but we expect them to
write stuff that won't allow a box on the internet to be own3d in under 24

Obvious isn't always correct...

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 12:55    [W:0.346 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site