Linux Kernel Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

Re:Linux Kernel Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnera... by lmm on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @06:40AM (#12642807)

This is a discussion forum, of course you're going to find talking rather than doing here.

Once there's a firm consensus that it's time to move away from C we'll probably stop talking about it. But that consensus has to develop through discussion and argument here and elsewhere (and if you look at the conversations now compared to a year or two ago, I'd say we've made a lot of progress). If you don't believe there's value in talking about technical issues then what are you even doing here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Kernel Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnera... by qwertyuiop924 on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:48AM (#12644232)

There's actually a pretty solid consensus here. I'm the only one I've seen arguing about C, and even I agree that it should be moved away from with these sorts of codebases. It's the rest of the world which doesn't have a consensus.

You're welcome to post, of course. I'd just rather you not. There's no sense preaching to the choir.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Linux Kernel Use-After-Free Remote Code Execution Vulnera... by meanduck on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @09:14AM (#12643495)

I guess GP is refering to repetitiveness of same arguments.

A tree thread is good for discovery but not so good for reaching a conclusion/consensus. Flat/linear thread should be used instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]