Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:26:02 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: copy_from_user() fixu |
| |
Chris Wedgwood writes: > On Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 11:38:58PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > Perhaps, but it breaks the spirit of all these standards (that you > > can have either a library or kernel implementation). > > maybe... I don't know enough about either standard to comment. > > I do understand what you are saying about syscall/libc transparency > and for the most part agree - but I do like getting EFAULT instead of > a coredump in some applications, mainly because I can write code to > recover from this more elegantly that a coredump. > > And before you say, I shouldn't get EFAULT, wrong. I do get them. > > Oh hang, no I don't, I forgot. My code if perfect. Silly me thinking > I might code the odd error...
Well, being serious here, I have a library that is bug-free, but I can't depend on application writers to sustain my level of perfection. So, so help these lesser beings, I trap EFAULT in my library and yield a more meaningful diagnostic than a mere EFAULT or SEGV.
> > Someone just pointed out that it really cannot -- you can hack to > > make it raise the signal, but the signal context will be all wrong. > > OK... then if this is necessary for some people, it should be > per-process with a sysctl setting the value for newly created > processes (0 - EFAULT, 1 - segfault, 2 - from parent, etc) with a > default to EFAULT.
Yep. If it has to be done, make it optional and retain the current behaviour as the default.
Regards,
Richard....
- 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
| |