Subject: Re: signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN) -> 100% CPU
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 06/10/1999 13:34:10
> There are two `problems' here.
> The first is [irrelevant to my message -dM]
> The second is that pipe(2) causes a segmentation violation rather
> than returning EFAULT. [...POSIX is silent...] The behaviour that
> results in this happening is due to the somewhat bogus manner in
> which pipe(2) returns the fd's (although there is some evidence to
> suggest we are at least consistant with some other commercial
> operating systems).
My impression is that in this respect we are compatible with
practically everything in existence, clear back to V7. However, that
is just an impression; I have no experience with anything before
BSD4.1c, and can't recall looking into how pipes were returned under
anything before BSD4.3, and I'm not sure about that.
> [U]nless someone wants to take it upon themselves to make it possible
> for pipe(2) to return EFAULT,
I looked at doing this, and it looks pretty simple. If anyone wants
it, I can even do the work (even for arches I don't use, since it
amounts to making pipe() no longer a special call - preserving the old
interface for binary compatability is something I don't feel prepared
to do except for arches I use, though that may change after I do it a
time or two).
But is it worth it? The only benefits I can see to changing this are
(1) uniformity with other syscalls, and the (current) manpage, wrt
invalid pointer arguments (EFAULT instead of a signal), and (2)
removing a special-case syscall from libc.
In my opinion, the latter benefit is worth the work. Anyone else care
to offer opinions, point out things I missed, etc?
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B