| |||||||||||||
I'm not sure nye meant all regressions need to be avoided.I'm not sure nye meant all regressions need to be avoided.Posted Nov 12, 2010 2:50 UTC (Fri) by gmatht (guest, #58961)In reply to: Glibc change exposing bugs by xilun Parent article: Glibc change exposing bugs
> So of course most of the time you don't have this problem of a suddenly changing libc under MS Windows, because each program has its own libc. Now what happens in case some version contains a security exploitable flaw? Security effort are duplicated in such an environment. (And this is just an example.)
This seems almost a strawman. Criticize Microsoft's policy if you want, but all nye suggested was using symbol versioning for this particular known-to-be-dangerous change. This wouldn't cause any security issues (and may even avoid some).
I agree that it isn't possible to avoid every regression. For example, newer software often has performance regressions on old hardware. However, this seems like a particularly serious regression, so if there was an easy way to stop old versions of software silently corrupting data it may be worth taking.
(Log in to post comments)
I'm not sure nye meant all regressions need to be avoided. Posted Nov 12, 2010 11:13 UTC (Fri) by xilun (subscriber, #50638) [Link]
Symbol versioning is when the API/ABI changes. Here, it has not.
|
|||||||||||||