Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:50:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN Message-ID: <20070513225031.GC21795@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr> References: <20070512153532.GQ21795@elvis.mu.org> <63984.1178992555@critter.freebsd.dk> <f25m78$ik$2@sea.gmane.org> <20070513215442.GZ21795@elvis.mu.org> <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> [070513 15:12] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Let's clear the issue here... FreeBSD did not have a choice in the > > matter. > > Actually it did. The SIGABORT codepath was only executed in case the > process is running under uid=0, in other cases it would just print out > the warning. I think behaviour such as this is a violation of POLA as > the behaviour is different depending on which users runs it (and if the > allocator can clearly handle the situation for nonprivileged users, it > can also handle it for root, but instead chose to be annoying). Ah I see. It's pretty worrysome that this passes for OK in the community. Considering the number of heap overflows I can't see this as being too much of a bad thing. > > We can't be "bug for bug tolerant" with Linnex without copying > > their allocator. > > No, but we can with the documented parts, and > malloc-inside-signal-handler support is documented > (http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/old/texinfo/glibc-manual-0.02/library_toc.html#SEC357). > > > Even if it's forbidden by POSIX or other standards, FreeBSD isn't > popular enough to be one of the systems that don't support it. I don't know about that, for the longest time Linux's "fsync" call was async because it was "faster", I'd not like to compete on those terms. Worse is not better. -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070513225031.GC21795>