From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 11 10:30:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA27597 for current-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sovcom.kiae.su (sovcom.kiae.su [193.125.152.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27550 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by sovcom.kiae.su id AA14288 (5.65.kiae-1 ); Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:07:12 +0300 Received: by sovcom.KIAE.su (UUMAIL/2.0); Tue, 11 Mar 97 21:07:11 +0300 Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA00496; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:06:52 +0300 (MSK) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:06:48 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= To: Eivind Eklund Cc: Bruce Evans , brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk, brian@utell.co.uk, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ppp In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970311182952.00ca33a0@dimaga.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote: > >The big difference here is pended (delayed) and not pended signals > >handling. PPP code was written in assumptions that SIGALRM reaction > >is not delayed, so if we trust developer, he choose timeout + handler > >action in the way that signals not missed. > > That would surprise me. Every other 'weird' condition (like malloc > returning NULL, or lines not being the apropriate length) seems to be > assumed to never happen - why should we assume the signal handling was > robust when nothing else is? (I'll try to finish off the patches to those > problems and send to Brian Real Soon Now.) I don't want to say that it is robust currently. I say different thing: even if we assume that it is robust, signal pending can broke it. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/