You claimed you have a library that's bug-free, and you're relying on
undefined behaviour. Clearly, your definition of "bug-free" is
something different than us "lesser beings" use.
> > Once again: if you're relying on EFAULT rather than SIGSEGV, your code
> > is broken, as you're relying on details of the libc/kernel interface.
> > I would argue that *IS* a bug in your "bug-free" library.
>
> I'm relying on what I've seen written in man pages for all varieties
> of Unix I've had access to.
Yes, it says that it's a PERMITTED return value, which is
fundamentally different from GUARANTEED.
> This abstract libc/kernel interface you refer to is an abstraction
> you've invented. It's not Unix practice. Unix practice is to return
> EFAULT on system calls. System calls are open(2), read(2), write(2)
> and similar.
I didn't invent it. It has been in every single Unix spec I've ever
read, and it's very explicit.
> > If you want to trap errors, you either have to sanitize the input, or
> > trap SIGSEGV.
>
> I can't sanitise the input: I don't know what pointer the application
> will pass. Trapping SEGV is a performance bugger: I have to install a
> signal handler before every pseudo-syscall and restore it afterwards
> (my library can't steal signals).
-
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