> > > Thats a matter for glibc. If you wrap the glibc syscall macros to do
> > > a raise(SIGSEGV) then you get your desire. So its a non kernel item ;)
> >
> > Still, I think that this could be in kernel. It is faster to do here
> > (you can SIGSEGV it directly from pagefault handler), and IMO you
> > _should_ get SIGSEGV for read(0,0,1)...
>
> Since when has SIGSEGV on a memory error been performance critical ?
It is not. But read again your solution (marked with smiley ;):
You propose to slow down every syscall return by test
if (retcode == -EFAULT) raise(SIGSEGV).
My argument is that if you do it from within kernel there's no such
slowdown.
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html