Hacker News Reader

Comment by otterley | Hacker News Reader

You’re posing a false choice. I can learn it and still insist that people communicate well.

I mean, it's good to want things, but I don't know what that gets you today. They're not going to give you the hand-crafted post you're asking for.

Not me personally, but with enough social pressure, perhaps these will cease over time. Minority positions become majorities. Policies change. You know, like what happened this past week.

The fact that you’re not joining the call for higher quality content is disheartening.

Hey, I don't write AI blog posts. But I want to know how KVM escapes work, too.

You don't because you consider KVM to be part of Firecracker?

If you're a provider, you absolutely do; it's part of the stack. It's like saying "Ruby" isn't a part of "Rails".

This vulnerability does not require firecracker. The CVE does not mention firecracker at all.

Ruby is not Rails. The same way Linux KVM is not Firecracker. You cannot paint everything with the same brush. The author chose to make this sensationalist by implying its a firecracker issue. It is not.

I've repeatedly explained this.

You've repeatedly claimed it, but the logic doesn't hold. KVM is a dependency for Firecracker, just like brotli is a dependency for Node. What matters isn't "who's according-to-Hoyle responsible", what matters is "are you exposed to it".

Not for nothing, but it would have been possible for Firecracker to disable the partial checksum feature this vulnerability exploits. If you wanted to push on the argument a bit, you could say that Firecracker ran virtio-net in an aggressive and possibly unsafe configuration. I wouldn't agree, but it's a colorable argument.

You make it sound like uncritically tolerating AI slop is a nonnegotiable price of learning new things.

It is when the "AI slop" is literally the only source of time-sensitive information, as it is here.

The time sensitive part containing the patch (which was also sloppy) was published last month; this article is but a PoC.

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260922030310.8684-2-habte.y...

Anyway, I think you keep missing my point. It’s the “uncritical” word that is important here. How work is done is often as important as the work itself. Isn’t that what we teach our children and our junior colleagues? What’s more, expectations should be even higher with seniority.

I don't have children, but if a thing's worth doing, it's generally worth doing poorly, even if ideally it would be done well.

I've created a thousand useful hacks that would make AI slop look like high art, that would not have been useful at all had they been polished to a high shine.

https://xkcd.com/1205/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com