a) if she does not catch it, she dies. And the dead don't complain (nor
waiste any resources).
b) if she does catch it, her behaviour is undefined (didn't some spec say
that catching SIGSEGV makes you suffer the consequences and only have
yourself to blame?).
What do you guys think about it?
Regards,
------
Tigran A. Aivazian | http://www.sco.com
Escalations Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd | http://www.ocston.org/~tigran
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> In message <Pine.SCO.3.94.991125130218.1686B-100000@tyne.london.sco.com>,
> Tigra
> n Aivazian writes:
> +-----
> | If David suggested to write -1's to userspace's fd[2] that means overhead
> | in non-failing case which is totally unacceptable. (it's the same as doing
> +--->8
>
> Compared to odd race conditions or file descriptor leaks?
>
> | verify_area(), in fact it is cheaper to keep the kernel lock over
> | copy_to_user() and close the descriptors if failed than doing that).
> +--->8
>
> Then perhaps that should be done. I'm not real happy with the other
> alternatives.
>
> --
> brandon s. allbery os/2,linux,solaris,perl allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
> system administrator kthkrb,heimdal,gnome,rt allbery@ece.cmu.edu
> carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering kf8nh
> We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
>
>
>
-
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.tux.org/lkml/