[BusyBox] insmod with uClibc mystery bugs

Matt Kraai kraai at alumni.carnegiemellon.edu
Wed Apr 25 17:34:37 UTC 2001


On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:52:26AM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> Matt asked
> > Why are we working around a theoretical kernel bug?
> 
> Because even potential infinite loops make me squirm,
> and the cost is so small.
> 
> Don't think of it as a theoretical kernel bug, think of it as
> a possible API bug.  It's good software practice to behave
> robustly, even when the other side of an API doesn't do what
> you expect.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that we should modify
BusyBox so that, if the kernel ever contains an off-by-one error,
we will not enter an infinite loop.  This is bogus.  If the
kernel contains an off-by-one error, it should be fixed, not
BusyBox.

If there are other reasons (it is clearer, it is smaller, it is
quicker, etc.) then by all means commit it.  But please don't do
it to compensate for a (non-existent) bug somewhere else.  If we
enter an infinite loop, it is the kernel's fault for not living up
to its API, not ours for adhering to it.

Matt





More information about the busybox mailing list