On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
> > Forget anything I said about KAME being the strong possibility :) As
> > soon as peter noted what commit it could have to do with, I figured
> > it out and fixed it; after testing, I committed it. Be happy :)
>
> Your fix suffers from exactly the same problem.. Suppose down the track
> that ucontext_t becomes smaller than 'struct sigocontext' ? You're then
> failing what would have worked. The check against sizeof osigcontext should
> not be fatal.
That will not happen, though. Your proposal suffers from a very similar
problem. Okay, let's assume that ucontext_t is _smaller_ than a
struct osigcontext. If it fails the "osigcontext size test", it
won't go to osigreturn, fine. BUT, it continues on, and is taken
as a valid ucontext_t instead of an EINVAL osigcontext. Do you
see where the problem is with this approach? Since the revision I
committed went under an assumption that's alway going to be true,
and even if it weren't, it would be updated to match the world
anyway, I don't see the problem.
>
> Cheers,
> -Peter
> --
> Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] `------------------------------'
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
