From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,71171f53c22d92b5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-14 01:46:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C's trikery semantic opens up backdoor in new Linux kernel
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:44:47 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <bp289b$1htajf$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <3FB1A63C.9080200@nowhere.com>
 <mailman.328.1068623355.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <bot7vd$1gtgp4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <mailman.332.1068645284.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <botf2c$1i2eq5$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <tkr7rvsch7eap70k2jummg4vqf80rposfg@4ax.com>
 <20031114093318.000065b0._elh_@_terma_._com_>
Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068803179 52341359 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2483
Date: 2003-11-14T10:44:47+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Erlo Haugen wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:04:02 +1300
>Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:09:52 +0100, Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
>> ...
>> >No. And you? Do you really think that the linux kernel community =
would
>> >like the idea of using a *function* to get/set a plain simple integer
>> >variable? I already hear them scream: "It would be too inefficient.
>> >Especially in a *kernel*!" ;-)
>>=20
>> Ada 95 could be enhanced so that specified record fields could be
>> read-only.

BTW, this is a neat idea. OTOH, for this approach to be practical
someone *must* have write access.

>Isn't this a matter of optmization?

Precisely. AFAICS.


Vinzent.