> I bet no applications at all currently check for EFAULT from system
> calls, unless they're really weird and are doing it to behave _as if_
> they'd received SIGSEGV. Actually I bet they don't bother because every
> syscall would need to be wrapped. I'm theorising that this could screw
> up Wine in some unusual but valid cases.
I'll take your money. You prove that there are *no* applications
that check for EFAULT and I'll pay up. Otherwise you pay up. Just
one condition - we set a time limit :-).
Seriously though, having looked at good knows how many iBCS traces
I can tell you that there is plenty of code out there that assumes
the kernel will give error codes if something is wrong - even when
they don't explicitly check *what* error occurred. I'm willing to
bet some of it is EFAULT sensitive.
(There is code that depends on the *order* that things are checked
too - even though there is no standard for it)
> - Only a few applications care whether SIGSEGV is raised or not.
If you can say that for certain you have spent more on source licenses
than Bill Gates is worth!
> I propose EFAULT should be retained, but faulting syscalls should _also_
> raise SIGSEGV.
Nononono... If you *must* break compatibility with exisiting systems
so casually make it a personality flag. Preferably one that is off
by default unless an application *specifically* asks for it.
Mike
-- .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk | | Roan Technology Ltd. | | | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 | | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 | `----------------------------------------------------------------------'
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html