Thu Jul 27 00:20:00 GMT 2006
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:15:43PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch,
>Thanks for the review.
>> but I'm not convinced that this patch duplicates the functionality that
>> you eliminated from check_iovec.
>It doesn't exactly, but the part it doesn't didn't seem correct. See
>> And, the dummytest is actually there for a reason.
>Ok, then what *is* the reason for checking only the last byte of each
>iovec buffer for read or write-ability? Doesn't it need to check a byte
>on every system page to be complete (because buffers could start in or
>span across invalid/protected virtual addresses)? Should an error be
>flagged if the readv wouldn't have actually accessed the invalid addresses
>(I'm not sure here)?
>After my patch, if the iovec buffer addresses are invalid, they will
>either be flagged as such by the underlying Windows system call, or they
>will trigger the fault handler installed above by all check_iovec callers
>if the cygwin DLL code tries to access them, no?
The "underlying Windows system call" can throw an uncaught exception.
That's why we check first.
The check is there for a reason. When I first moved to the exception
handling method, I took all of the checking out of the iovec stuff. I
had to put it back in because it didn't work without it.
More information about the Cygwin-patches