On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 11:48 +0200, Tomas Glozar wrote: > čt 18. 9. 2025 v 10:36 odesílatel Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> napsal: > > > > Yeah totally, I have the feeling that with the kernel there's no such a > > thing as a "theoretical bug", kinda like a good consequence of Murphy's > > Law. > > My understanding of "theoretical bug" is that it's code that is > semantically equivalent to a bug-free code, but becomes buggy after > doing an "innocent" change. The bug might be more or less > "theoretical" based on how "innocent" that change is. Of course, in a > codebase of the size of a Linux kernel, this tends to happen quite > often, and is not always possible to get rid of completely...
Yeah good point, we are getting philosophical here :) . This wasn't a theoretical bug then, just something you don't think will really happen (a failure creating a sysfs directory) ... until it happens. The fact there is a way to make that function fail on-demand (kernel lockdown), makes it just more "real". Moral of the story, better get the compiler check things for you (lock guards). Anyway the fix is now upstream. Gabriele
