Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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 <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.53 RC/4)
Reply-To:	egor duda <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
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

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

- Raw text -