ReDress
If a syscall is designed to counter the flaws have been observed in another syscall, then there's no way this is a distinct syscall.
If a syscall is designed to add feature to an another syscall, then there's no way this is distinct syscall.
And so on and so forth.
If you actually look at Linux kernel code, you will quickly note that a lot of these related syscall even happen to share a large amount of implementation code.
So, yeah
And they wouldn't ever count as distinct syscalls.
Trying to counter a logical argument with a technical argument is pretty lame and doesn't make for a healthy conversation.
However, I am bit skeptical as to whether io-uring will ever support all Linux syscalls.
At this point I am convinced that io-uring primarily supports I/O API / syscalls. That would mean syscalls relating to disk and network I/O. While this covers a lot of syscalls it most definitely doesn't cover all.
Though, to give some credit her, it does also cover to syscalls relating to kernel features like futex but yeah, for the most part it doesn't cover much that doesn't have to do with I/O.
Which is obviously not a problem but raises the question of whether it ever will support other kernel features.
But, anyways, not like it matters that much but still.
400 distinct syscalls is a very large number of syscalls if you generally presume they're entirely distinct.
Does it still make sense to term or classify them as two distinct syscalls?
I seem to be closing in the completing the task nowadays, though.
It has been 5 years so far.
I bet it's a lot of fun being a Rust programmer / coder.
But, okay, that could make a valid excuse.
But, what you cannot excuse yourself for, is that you don't really add any functionality. In fact, you don't reproduce all the functionality let alone adding more.
Will this actually update the 'last modified' date for an already existing file?
Also, there's a standard way of processing command line arguments on Linux/Unix, which is not being followed here.
Article describes the technical aspects of the bug, how it got handled by different vendors...AI position on it...
But, one would always ask themselves, why did the author write this article? That part hasn't been clear to me even after going through much of the article.
My desktop computer is at 57tuu56.intercom.rapidseedbox.com. Is it possible for me to employ AI in my process?
Probably depends on at what level you see things. If you visit and probably live in Japan, then you develop the concept of 'cryptocurrency'. You then subsequently develop intellectual property around the 'concept' of 'cryptocurrency'.
Is this really 'imperative' programming? I'd say not but depending on at what level you see things, then it could be.
At project level, then it's purely functional.
Regardless of the language used!
But, Rust does indeed embedded extra code for much of the functionality that it adds ontop of what C/C++ has.
This obviously has a performance hit. Might not be observable on a desktop application but it will be evident on server applications.
And, if all you're doing is taking material from real life and uploading into computers, then you're not modifying state at all.
I'd also like to note that performance is the ULTIMATE concern in a lot of cases.
If you have a server that is making 10million requests to a certain method in a minute, then you cannot afford any performance compromise. Any, at all.
Rust will never replace C/C++ with regard to high performance computing.
But, yeah and indeed, it probably takes more than just technical abilities to start a company.
Very childish
But, for one reason the other, they might give credit to a vulnerability they find interesting.
No-one, really will care if you discovered it via AI or otherwise. Because, the weight of the bug itself should outweight other concerns. This is how professional security works. There will always be one concern or the other about a bug but what carries more weight will determine the direction that the disclosure process takes.
A valid security bug, by itself should carry enough technical weight that concerns about whether it was discovered through AI or otherwise should become irrelevant.
Anyways, it mostly seems like people don't really care much about computer security at Linux. I would like to think they care more about infrastructure and related security issues because, well, if my computer is an open book, then why would security issues around it be a concern?
Anyways...
Enough said here - lol
It probably just happens that the security concerns at ZDI don't match the security concerns at Linux(the vendor).
So, it turns out that this vendor is difficult to work with ....
I mean - heh
But they have also disabled Linux as one of the products that they work with.
This is great, this is some good work. But, like an issue I described before with Linux kernel io-uring[1], this fails to test and demonstrate performance with a healthy server load.
This obviously fails to depict a healthy server load because it's just way too specific.
Rust is taking steps or has been taking steps in this direction too.
It's not surprising that a lot of experienced systems and desktop development engineers looking to getting their hands on the newest tool already have experience or at least familiarity with C and C++.
That boolean is actually mostly an extension of the integer system whereby we now have an integer type that stores only one bit.
Whereby the bit stored either results in a 'true' or 'false' value.
Anyways, I know booleans are useful in systems development when you have strict memory / storage constrains / bandwidth (networks).
Yeah, that works for me.