From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 13 22:49:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A4616A403 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 22:49:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CE713C448 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 22:49:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id B12B81A4D81; Sun, 13 May 2007 15:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:50:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Ivan Voras Message-ID: <20070513225031.GC21795@elvis.mu.org> References: <20070512153532.GQ21795@elvis.mu.org> <63984.1178992555@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070513215442.GZ21795@elvis.mu.org> <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46478C9A.9050807@fer.hr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:49:43 -0000 * Ivan Voras [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