[C-safe-secure-studygroup] Bounds-checked interfaces

Robert Seacord rcseacord at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 11:13:52 GMT 2019


That quote will do.  ;-)  Is that just old folksy programmer wisdom or is
it written down somewhere?

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 4:24 AM Clive Pygott <clivepygott at gmail.com wrote:

> I think I'd like to see what it is I'm supposed to have said, before you
> start something as 'Clive says...'!
>
> What is recognized is that if something has been working for sometime
> without issues, its a bad idea to force it to be changed to meet some new
> standard, usually known as 'grandfather rights'.
>
>        Clive
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM Robert Seacord <rcseacord at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm working on a paper on bounds-checked interfaces that I'm going to
>> solicit reviewers for soon.
>> Meanwhile, I've heard Clive defend the following principle:
>>
>> This is a widely-held expert view that changes to “working code” only
>> increase the opportunities to inject new defects.  This view has even been
>> expressed by the safety-critical community.
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is an authoritative source I could reference on
>> this claim?
>>
>> I'm tempted just to write "Clive says...."  ;^)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> rCs
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/c-safe-secure-studygroup/attachments/20190117/f3198ab4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the C-safe-secure-studygroup mailing list