![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > no, it's a quality of implementation issue. Also it's a usability > > issue, bugs detected should be reported back to user-space. It's > > _not_ a valid excuse that if it's not defined explicitly in POSIX > > or that other OSs are less careful. > > I don't disagree its a useful feature - but its behaves > inconsistently between different OSs and different versions of linux. the only issue we care about when something is already defined in another OS. > But... the behaviour isn't consistent right now, why should we expect > it to be in ther future? 2.0 is definitely consistent. (or should be) > We changed the semantics once already, they could change again, > writing applications based upon on set on undefined semantics sounds > a bit dodgey to me. ? we have not changed any semantics. > Anyhow... we can do the above, (non-portably) in user-space my mmap > PROT_NONE and pulling apart the stack frame we get in the segfault > signal handler. this is what i'm talking about. If the driver is buggy and doesnt return -EFAULT then user-space has no chance to catch the fault on the PROT_NONE. -- mingo - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||