From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:50:40 +1200 > However, this is about longer-term improvement of the quality of > implementation; in X years (choose your X) time, a lot of new > application may not need to care about the old broken behavior. There is really no value to this, the AF_UNIX NULL termination issue is significantly different from the signal examples you mention. If we're going to, like Carlos will, make mention in POSIX documents that one must account for possible lack of NULL termination, there is absolutely ZERO value in changing things because we are telling application writers the state of reality which is that they have to allot for this. Please drop this issue, the discussion was over a long time ago, thank you very much. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
