Subject: Re: useracc() or usercrack()?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/13/1998 12:59:49
In article <199809131254.IAA02857@lunacity.ne.mediaone.net> email@example.com (Charles M. Hannum) writes:
>So, I'd like to remedy this. Either we should fix useracc() or we
>should remove it. To fix it, I suggest:
>* Make it a machine-dependent function. Have it check the permissions
> in the page table and iff that fails call (u)vm_fault(), to handle
> copy-on-write, etc. (For reading, we could possibly just have it
> try to read the page! Very fast...)
>* Eliminate the extraneous uses of it just to detect errors early.
> This is kind of pointless.
>* On ports with shared address spaces, switch back to using useracc()
> and accessing the signal context directly.
>Any comments from the cashew gallery?
I suggest that we remove it.