Re: Someone using COMPAT_SVR4(_32) ?

On 08/01/2017 02:03 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>>    History has shown that, in the general sense, the parts of an
>> open-source project that are fun and flashy get most of the attention
>> from developers.  Writing new whiz-bang features to show off in the
>> release notes is a lot more fun than chasing bugs and maintaining
>> existing code, so that's most of what happens.
>>
>>    When you couple that with the "this is buggy, just rip it out"
>> mindset, what we'll be left with is just the parts that developers find
>> it fun to work on.
>>
>>    Ripping out good features because they simply need to be fixed is an
>> awful idea.
> 
> No it's not.

  Actually, in the long term, yes it is.  If you take the time to
actually read what I wrote, and at least make some effort to understand
the point I was trying to make, this might be more clear.  Take your
current activity relating to COMPAT_SVR4 and extend it to the rest of
the code base.  We'd have no OS left if everyone just took the easy
route and chopped out anything that has a bug in it.

> For your information, several vulnerabilities in compat_svr4
> were presented at DEFCON 25, and we now have wild kernel exploits out
> there,
> affecting NetBSD-6 and NetBSD-7. It's not just "buggy", it makes all of the
> system vulnerable - including your sparc64 machines.

  No one disputed that.

> Again, if it "simply" needs to be fixed, why didn't you fix it?

  Ah, finally the predictable response.  I was beginning to worry.

> Finally, removing this piece of code has little to do with shiny stuff. It
> has to do with making the code base clearer, in such a way that several of
> our ports are easier to maintain, and as a result, more functional.

  You misunderstand.  I wasn't accusing YOU of only wanting to work on
shiny stuff.  Rather, I was describing why COMPAT_SVR4 remains unfixed,
and other areas of the code become stagnant, while new features get added.

              -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA