Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:58:36 +0400 From: egor duda X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53 RC/4) Reply-To: egor duda Organization: deo X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1297610035.20010911125836@logos-m.ru> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Checking input parameters of syscalls In-Reply-To: <20010910222228.X937@cygbert.vinschen.de> References: <20010910154431 DOT A792 AT dothill DOT com> <20010910222228 DOT X937 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! Tuesday, 11 September, 2001 Corinna Vinschen cygwin-patches AT cygwin DOT com wrote: CV> Frankly, I don't know. My first guess is to prioritize correctness CV> over speed ... [...] Speaking about correctness. I'm planning yet another update to testsuite and found that many cygwin functions still crash when application passes an invalid pointer to them, instead of returning EFAULT. Should we leave this as it is (to avoid possible slowdown) or sprinkle check_null_empty_str and check_null_invalid_struct all around? quick testing shows that IsBadWritePtr() function is quite fast (~10 microsecinds per call on my K6/400MHz), so i think the latter is the right way to go. Egor. mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19