On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 06:45:44PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Le 26/09/2019 à 18:15, Manuel Bouyer a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 05:28:11PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > > Le 26/09/2019 à 17:25, Brian Buhrow a écrit :
> > > > [...]
> > > > One implication of your proposal is that you'll disable the
> > > > autoload
> > > > functionality, users will turn it back on, use it, and be more
> > > > vulnerable
> > > > than they are now because the primary developers aren't concern with
> > > > making
> > > > things work or secure anymore.
> > >
> > > Nobody is making compat_linux work, nobody is making compat_linux secure.
>
> My experience with a Linux program using forks and signals is that it does not
> work at all; the children get killed randomly for no reason, the parent
> doesn't
> receive the signals, and after some time everything needs to be killed and
> restarted to work again. Completely broken. I didn't manage to find where
> exactly the problem was.
>
> Under reasonable assumptions, compat_linux indeed used to be the most
> maintained compat layer we had. This isn't the case anymore. Under reasonable
> assumptions as well, it has a marginal use case, and can be disabled.
>
> Maybe Manuel can understand that for a minute? Or is he still looking for
> evidence that I'm not the Pope?
I'm conviced you're not the pope.
You don't seem to understand that I use compat_linux on a regular
basis. Probably not with the same softwares as you, but it does work for me.
I forgot to mention, I also use it with opera.
>
> > Secure, I don't know.
>
> Well Manuel can pretend everything he wants, but when it comes to security and
> compat_linux, we're entering the world of facts, and not reasonable
> assumptions.
I never contested your facts on this topic. "I don't know" just means that:
I don't know. I've not looked at the code, nor at any changes in this
area for a long time.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
