So, who is correct?

How does one country legislate the content of a company based in another country?

Do you think that censorship is a better solution?

Just to give this context a little bit more substance, Pascal was designed to work on a mainframe which could address up to 4MB of RAM, with a typical setup of around 1MB (it's actually not the real amounts: the CDC-6600 the values are 128Kwords, but it had 60 bits word). These machine were beasts designed for scientific computation.

The first C compiler was implemented on a PDP-11, which could handle up to 64KB of RAM, and had 16bits words.

I assume that these constraints had a heavy influence on how each language was designed and implemented.

Note that I wasn't aware of all these details before writing this comment, I had to check.

See: http://pascal.hansotten.com/niklaus-wirth/zurich-pascal-comp...

Regarding the C compiler, it is likely that the first version was written in assembly language, which was later "translated" to C.

An early version of the compiler can be found there: https://github.com/theunafraid/first_c_compiler and does look like assembly hand converted to (early) C.

https://zenodo.org/records/18107880

See this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46494183

Isn't a virtual ISA like an intermediate representation? It doesn't have to include static addresses, only symbolic references, which could be resolved at launch time.

Does it mean that at that level an address has to be an offset in a linear address space?

If you have hardware powerful enough to make addresses abstract, couldn't also provide the operations to manipulate them abstractly?

https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists

The good guys are certainly monitoring these channels already.

I don't know nor follow kernel development well enough to answer these questions. My point was just a general reflection, and admittedly a reformulation of Linus's argument, which I think is genuinely valid.

If you allow me, one could frame this differently though: is the memory leak the symptom or the problem?

You can already say that for the majority of the bugs being fixed, and I think that's one of the points: tagging certain bugs as exploitable make it seem like the others aren't. More generally, someone's minor issue might be a major one for someone else, and not just in security. It could be anything the user cares about, data, hardware, energy, time.

Perhaps the real problem is that security is just a view on the bigger picture. Security is important, I'm not saying the opposite, but if it's only an aspect of development, why focus on it in the development logs? Shouldn't it be instead discussed on its own, in separate documents, mailing lists, etc by those who are primarily concerned by it?

Comment [intentionally] designed to look like generative AI.

https://lobste.rs/s/qoqfwz/inverse_parentheses#c_n5z77w

which should provide the answer.