Wait, I think you and I are having very different conversations.
If the topic you're discussing is that the clients of an OS API should not encounter a bug...uh, I mean, I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you. It's not like Microsoft engineers put that bug in there thinking it would be OK. They even acknowledged that it was a bug...it just wasn't high priority because the caller (presumably; again, I know nothing about these syscalls) is not following best practices. Someone's pet bug got deprioritized. This is not news.
The topic I thought we were discussing was whether it's the OS's responsibility to prevent callers from misusing their APIs in a way that causes stupid things to happen, even when the caller is doing something stupid.
I think the latter is a more interesting conversation, but I apologize if I interrupted your discussion of the former.
"Wait, I think you and I are having very different conversations."
So it would seem.
"It's not like Microsoft engineers put that bug in there thinking it would be OK."
You say that now. But the reason my strident response was triggered was because of what you said in your original post that I replied to:
"I don't know what contract these operations have, but it may very well be the case that the user was violating the contract. If Microsoft responded with "don't do that", this may be the case."
That is quite absurd on it's face. I replied with how the contract was nothing more or less than the syscall API and there was no margin for negotiation on kernel's part when it comes to corrupting data when a user program calls those APIs in whatever order it pleases.
Subsequently, your arguments seem to have become more elaborate with a lot more caveats added. I think it has stopped being fruitful for me to respond at this point.
If the topic you're discussing is that the clients of an OS API should not encounter a bug...uh, I mean, I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you. It's not like Microsoft engineers put that bug in there thinking it would be OK. They even acknowledged that it was a bug...it just wasn't high priority because the caller (presumably; again, I know nothing about these syscalls) is not following best practices. Someone's pet bug got deprioritized. This is not news.
The topic I thought we were discussing was whether it's the OS's responsibility to prevent callers from misusing their APIs in a way that causes stupid things to happen, even when the caller is doing something stupid.
I think the latter is a more interesting conversation, but I apologize if I interrupted your discussion of the former.