From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 25 11:09:34 2005
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D76A16A4CE; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:09:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D3E0D43D41; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:09:33 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0PB9Xao081637;
	Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:09:33 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:06:48 +0300."
             <20050125110648.GB29791@nagual.pp.ru> 
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:09:33 +0100
Message-ID: <81636.1106651373@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sys_generic.c 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:09:34 -0000

In message <20050125110648.GB29791@nagual.pp.ru>, Andrey Chernov writes:
>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:58:11PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>> What's about "invalid buffer pointers" detection, directly mentioned in 
>> the standard (above)? Now it is broken for zero bytes read because your 
>> newly inserted check takes precedence.
>
>The next precedence violation candidate in error detection will be:
>
>"[EIO] 
>The process is a member of a background process attempting to read from 
>its controlling terminal, the process is ignoring or blocking the SIGTTIN 
>signal, or the process group is orphaned."
>
>I.e. look at ERRORS section list and inspect each errno returning broken 
>by preliminary zero bytes check.

That's another check we didn't do before to the resid==0 handling before.

Now, I'm going to killfile this subject until you come up with code which
real-life code which breaks because of this, OK ?

Bye...

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.