On September 15, 2015 4:30:56 AM CDT, Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Eric W. Biederman ><ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: >> Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Eric W. Biederman >>> <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote: >>>> Sean Fu <fxinr...@gmail.com> writes: >> '\0' is not and has never been valid in a text file. >> proc files are a text interface. >> Expecting '\0' to be accepted is very strange, and apparently there >is >> only one program in existence that does. >> >> That a trailing '\0' was ever accepted was due to a bug in the code. >> >> Accepting '\0' in general in a text interface is a very dangerous and >> buggy pattern so it must be done very carefully or else other >> regressions or bugs could be easily introduced. >Ok, >Could you please give me more detail about the potential risk from the >patch?
Regressions. AKA There may now be programs that depend on writing a '\0' failing. >What is the different behavior between the patch and old kernel? >It seems like entirely same. Not at all. And clear explanations have already been given. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/