Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:39:47 +0100 | From | Guest section DW <> | Subject | Re: [patch-2.3.29] bugfix for pipe(2) system call. |
| |
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 03:13:06PM +0000, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > > it just occurred to me - there is even better solution. We can do the same > > > as SCO UnixWare 7.1.0 does. I.e. to send SIGSEGV to the offender. This > > > way: > > > > Well, SuS says: EFAULT when filedes (array) is invalid. > > Of course SuS just codifies classical behaviour, and > > that was the way.. SEGV is - somewhat - radical response.. > > SuSv2 says nothing of the kind (the copy in my /usr/doc/ i.e.). Where did > you get that from? Mine only mandates EMFILE and ENFILE.
Well, there is the generic (page 34 in the latest draft)
[EFAULT] Bad address. The system detected an invalid address in attempting to use an argument of a call. The reliable detection of this error cannot be guaranteed, and when not detected may result in the generation of a signal, indicating an address violation, which is sent to the process.
valid for all calls. That is: if the kernel notices the bad address it must return EFAULT. If not, e.g. because the routine is implemented in libc, then one may get SEGV.
- 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/
| |