[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Bug in kernel code?
On 27 Aug 2002 at 20:39, David S. Miller wrote:

> How about (unsigned long)(~0)?
> Realistically possible with any known configuration?

You tell me. You're saying a billion pages (((unsigned long)(~0)) >> 2) also crashes) is never
going to be realistically possible? Sounds like Bill Gates when he said (and I don't know the word-
for-word quote) "Who's ever going to need more than 640K??" What if we get into 64 bit addressing?
What if there is some sort of bug that passes all 1s on the stack for just this one instance?
Never could "realistically" happen? Yeah, right; I've seen weirder things than that.

It's a question of mandatory paranoid sanity checking in an OS wherever possible. Linux is trying
to be known as robust. Are you saying that a supposedly robust kernel should have a chance to
crash in an infinite loop during initialization because there isn't code doing input validation
when there isn't an optimization or speed issue?

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 13:28    [W:0.102 / U:2.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site