Mail Archives: cygwin/2008/09/23/15:13:12
Barry Smith at SourceLink wrote:
> > That doesn't mean that 'run' was at fault.
> Yet it could have been at fault, or the cygwin memory
> allocation could be at fault, or Windoze, or the tool
> that you're RUN-ing.
The "Cygwin memory allocation" most certainly could not be at fault, nor
could the tool being run. Again, the one and only thing that is
culpable when a BSOD occurs is code running in kernel mode. Any attempt
from user-space to do anything untoward simply results in a software
fault, with a default handler installed by the OS which terminates the
process if it does not handle the fault itself. Thus the very worst a
process can ever do is get itself terminated. Anything more is simply
not possible, as enforced by the processor which is running in protected
mode.
That's not to say that a BSOD cannot result from the action of running
user-space code, but when it does the underlying reason for the BSOD
cannot possibly be in the user-space code, it must be a bug in
kernel-mode code because by definition it is charged with disallowing
any process from destabilizing the system, and it has failed.
(And please, it's spelled Cygwin, not CygWIN.)
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -