Comment by hedora
2 days ago
"panic" is a good thing. There's always some error condition that your code cannot handle. At some point, the least bad thing to do is crash.
For instance, what if your error handling code throws?
One spectacular example of panic saving the day was the Apollo 11 1202 error. It was basically a watchdog timer that fired if the landing computer was starved of CPU time. A misconfiguration caused the first moon landing to hit CPU overload. When that happened, the computer displayed 1202 and rebooted, then ran things in priority order. Apollo 11 landed in the middle of a tight 'panic, reboot, adjust thrusters' loop. Thanks to core memory, most of the heap survived the reboot, so the reboot step was fast enough for it to mostly land without human interaction. The pilot had to make ~1 adjustment to get it to actually hit the landing site, but the panic-ridden computer handled the rest of the descent.
https://dpma.de/english/our_office/publications/ingeniouswom...
sshole-type APIs < panicking APIs < required error handling.
Panic is fine, but fundamentally a whole-program crash is undesirable in a really wide range of use-cases. I don't want other SSH connections to crash (or the server to stop accepting valid logins until someone restarts sshd) if one person tries to log in with a credential that triggers a panicking bug in crypt(). Same for crashes in request handlers and so on.
The language/runtime itself doesn't (and probably cannot, at least if it's a general purpose language) distinguish between local and global error conditions, so aborts end up being either unnecessarily damaging, or languages like Go end up normalizing panic "localization"/handling in dangerous ways. Isolation using threads isn't robust enough. Isolation using processes is far too fiddly, slow, and opaque.
The better solution is required error handling. If user code must engage with the possibility of an error state in order to access a result, that's a huge step forward. They can do the error handling wrong, but if you make most people have to do it at all most of the problems will go away.
There are other good solutions too, like Erlang's process boundaries, but those tend to have drawbacks that make them inapplicable to a lot of programming areas. Tagged unions, on the other hand, are only inapplicable in C library code because of language defects and terrible community conventions around ABIs.
"I forgot to check for an error" should not be implicated in bugs in 2026; we have had a large menu of possible alternatives (checked exceptions, unchecked exceptions, tagged unions, etc.) for decades. But we're still over here writing C (and Go), languages pathologically incapable of providing this ability.
SSH specifically has separate processes per connection the last time I checked, so a panic does the right thing: The attacker's connection drops uncleanly.
This is also why you can upgrade SSH over SSH without having the connection drop mid-stream.
Again: You cannot avoid "I forgot to check for an error". What happens if you get a sigpipe on stdout when printing the "I crashed" line? If Linux overcommits memory? If you turn off overcommit, port all software to check for + cleanly handle NULL from malloc (a substantial effort!), but then get a machine check exception from a double bit ECC error during an infallible read?
Sort of. It does some of the validation/auth code in the sshd parent daemon.
It has to: if it did 100% of the post-accept(2) work in a subprocess it would be pretty easy to remotely forkbomb/PID-exhaust a system by spamming invalid logins.
> You cannot avoid "I forgot to check for an error"
Yes you can. Checked exceptions and tagged unions both force calling code to be written with error-awareness.
In SSH's case, "I forgot to check" might lead to crashes (which might knock over sshd so new connections are impossible), or it might lead to false-positives via comparing NULL == NULL.
I'd much rather that boneheaded API users have to write code like
At least that way some keystrokes are required to do the stupid thing. People still will (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...), but the harder we can make it, the better.
1 reply →