Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:26:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org, waa@aurora.cis.upenn.edu, deraadt@theos.com, chuck@maria.wustl.edu Subject: Re: larry: you might want to add this to lmbench (but i'm not sure) Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951110151539.13530N-100000@morse> In-Reply-To: <199511102004.NAA04257@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'd actually hope that programs that got this kind of error would be > murdered by the OS. Code that didn't check its return values in > the face of such an error shouldn't be allowed to continue running. We tried this program on windows/nt and it got killed. But for an interesting reason: the posix subsystem on nt is a library, not the kernel server that the books lead you to believe it is. So the posix library does a load from the bogus pointer and dies. But here's the $9K question: how do you decide it's not checking return values, and what return values should you require be checked and which shouldn't? i'm not convinced that's a decision the os should make. ron
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.91.951110151539.13530N-100000>