Subject: Re: signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN) -> 100% CPU
To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Giles Lean <email@example.com>
Date: 06/14/1999 09:16:57
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Sunday, June 13, 1999 at 23:47:54 (+1000), Robert Elz wrote: ]
> > What might be worth doing is fixing intro(2) such that it says ..
> > 14 EFAULT Bad address. The system detected an invalid address in attempt-
> > ing to use an argument of a call. The system might generate
> > a SIGSEGV signal instead of, or in addition to, generating this
> > error.
> > That would probably make everyone happy.
> I would say that's the worst of all the options.
> The syscall manual pages should very explicitly mention *only* those
> errno values which might actually be returned by the current
Of course all the values that can be returned must be listed. Adding
those specified in the relevant standards that can't actually be
returned by the current implementation is good for portability.
Listing an extra that could be returned by an alternate implementation
seems fairly harmless future proofing unless it gets us in trouble
w.r.t. the standards.