Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 21:34:25 +0100 From: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind@netbsd.org> To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Cc: tech-net@NetBSD.org, guy@alum.mit.edu, darrenr@NetBSD.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX Message-ID: <20130809203446.428A714A308@mail.netbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <38CDC9BB-09C7-4241-8746-163BD15B80EC@cs.columbia.edu> References: <20130804191310.2FFBB14A152@mail.netbsd.org> <5202693C.50608@netbsd.org> <20130807175548.1528014A21F@mail.netbsd.org> <5203535D.2040508@netbsd.org> <38CDC9BB-09C7-4241-8746-163BD15B80EC@cs.columbia.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steven, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: > There's a one-word summary: *assurance*. With the current design, > it's easy to *know* what can happen. With a Turing-complete extension, > it isn't. It is still easy and the concept itself is very simple. I mentioned that this extension does not make byte-code Turing-complete and the rest is in your control. Darren ignored it. -- Mindaugas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130809203446.428A714A308>