Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 04 Jun 2002 19:10:47 -0600
From:      "Todd C. Miller" <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com>
To:        Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Cc:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.ORG>, audit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] making dump EINTR resistant 
Message-ID:  <200206050110.g551Alpu020379@xerxes.courtesan.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 2002 19:47:10 EDT." <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]> 
References:  <20020605083335.T5376-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]>
	so spake Garance A Drosihn (drosih):

> Would it be acceptable to add EINTR-type checks to freebsd-ish
> code?  There are some sections of lpr/lpd which do not work
> right when compiled on other platforms, unless I add EINTR
> checks at the right places.

It would probably be better to just make the code in question to
just use sigaction() if you are concerned about portability.  That
way you get consistent handling of syscall restarts.

Alternately, you could #define signal to bsd_signal when compiling
on non-BSD platforms.  That is not quite as portable though.

 - todd

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206050110.g551Alpu020379>