From owner-freebsd-emulation Thu Sep 7 15:36: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E3C37B42C for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25573; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:33:25 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA06837; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:33:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:33:24 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200009072233.QAA06837@nomad.yogotech.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), Bruce Evans , marcel@cup.hp.com, freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM JDK fails due to lack of SA_SIGINFO support In-Reply-To: <14776.4695.816482.749092@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <200009071533.JAA05353@nomad.yogotech.com> <200009072209.QAA06661@nomad.yogotech.com> <14776.4695.816482.749092@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > And the size is allocated inside the application's space? I thought the > > size was allocated inside the kernel, hence the need for the system > > call. > > The system call sets a flag and sets the sigstat stack pointer in the > process struct. Look at the code for "allocating" space for the > signal handler context in the various sendsig() functions. > > > > Bumping the size in the kernel corresponds to using unallocated space > > > beyond the end of the space allocated by the application. > > > > So how would you propose fixing this? In Linux, the minimum size is << > > FreeBSD's minimum size. Either we decrease FreeBSD's minimum size or we > > abort the request, causing these applications to fail. > > I'd suggest reducing FreeBSD's minimum size. Is that acceptable (Bruce)? This is what Marcel suggested, and I argued against, but in the end he was right, but I'm not aware of what effect this would have on the system. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message