Hi, Sorry for my silence.
ok yasuoka for the daemon part. On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:27:10 +0200 Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31/03/20(Tue) 23:16, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 06:15:46PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: >> > [...] >> > Well better fix npppd(8), no? Not crashing the kernel is priority 1. >> I made patch for npppd(8) too. I include it to this email below, without >> starting new thread, ok? If ioctl(PIPEXASESSION) failed and error != >> ENXIO it means that pipex is enabled and session creation failed so down >> this connection. > > Thanks, I committed the kernel part. I'm waiting to see if other devs > want to comment on the daemon part. > >> > Then if the daemon has a bug, should the kernel work around it? >> In most common cases should :( > > That's an opinion. There's no true or false answer. Working around it > has obvious advantages but it doesn't make us fix existing bug and instead > force us to maintain the work around. > > It is argued that the "failing hard" model, as it is practised in OpenBSD > software development, has the advantage of resulting in simpler code because > every layer is responsible for handling errors and doesn't pile workaround. > > This bug is a nice example. Thanks for the report! If you could submit > your refactoring in a new thread, I'd love to look at it. >
