Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com> said:
Chris Adams writes:
>Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com> said:
>> Chris Adams writes:
>> >Is there any value in this "additional check" (that nobody else
>> >apparently does)? Do you not trust the kernel's credential handling?
>>
>> I certainly trust it. But just because I trust it, it doesn't mean that
>any
>> additional checks have no value.
>
>Sure it does. If the credentials are always correct, additional checks
>past that are a waste of cycles.
You feel absolutely confident that just because you can't think of any
value of additional checks, there cannot possibly be any.
You're wrong.
Prove it.
When I'm building a wall for a house, I follow the plan that is drawn up
by others that works in a common fashion. I don't arbitrarily put a
diagonal brace in a standard wall section just as an additional check.
I follow others' years of design experience and just build a normal
wall.
What use case is there in determining an exact binary is being used?
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.