Comment by sunrunner

12 hours ago

Maybe it's just my lack of reading comprehension but some of the wording in this report feels off:

> this code change came with a red-button to turn off that particular policy serving path.

> the root cause was identified and the red-button (to disable the serving path) was being put in place

So the red-button was or wasn't in place on May 29th? The first sentence implies it was ready to be used but the second implies it had to be added. A red-button sounds like a thing that's already in place and can be triggered immediately, but this sounds like an additional change had to be deployed?

> Without the appropriate error handling, the null pointer caused the binary to crash

This is the first mention of null pointer (and _the_ null pointer too, not just _a_ null pointer) this implies the specific null pointer that would have caused a problem was known at this point? And this wasn't an early issue?

I don't mean to play armchair architect and genuinely want to understand this from a blameless post-mortem point-of-view given the scale of the incident, but the wording in this report doesn't quite add up.