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 22:50:54 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Checking input parameters of syscalls Message-ID: <20010911225054.A1800@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010910154431 DOT A792 AT dothill DOT com> <20010910222228 DOT X937 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1297610035 DOT 20010911125836 AT logos-m DOT ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1297610035.20010911125836@logos-m.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:58:36PM +0400, egor duda wrote: >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. Definitely the latter. There is no reason why cygwin should segv. Could you add the appropriate checks, Egor? cgf