Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
To: NetBSD Security Technical Discussion List <tech-security@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 10/16/2002 12:35:36
[ On Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 11:02:42 (-0400), Jason R. Fink wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
> > > How about "verixec"? VERIfied eXEC
> or vexec ...
> No we are not, but this involves the actual code as well and I
> do not like the idea of "verified_exec()" or "kern_verfied_exec.c"
> (the latter of which breaks a convention).
No, I don't think the latter would be breaking any (important)
convention -- it _could_ even be adhering to one in fact.
> veri_exec() and/or kern_vexec.c make more sense from a coding
veri_exec() is just about as bad as "verixec" or "vexec" or any other
jargonish contraction and worse can be confusing and even lead to typos
caused by that confusion (i.e. "veri" is _far_ too close to "vari").
Saying what you mean in a symbol name (or file name) is equally
important and there are a plethora of ways to avoid having to type too
much if that's your concern.
According to Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike: Ken Thompson was once asked
what he would do differently if he were redesigning the UNIX System.
His reply: "I'd spell creat with an e." (as related in a footnote in
"The UNIX Programming Environment" by K&P)
> however, the "Name itself" certainly could (should???)
> be "Verified Executables."
on this we agree! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>