Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:33:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, marcel@cup.hp.com, freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM JDK fails due to lack of SA_SIGINFO support Message-ID: <200009072233.QAA06837@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <14776.4695.816482.749092@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <200009071533.JAA05353@nomad.yogotech.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009080844380.30205-100000@besplex.bde.org> <200009072209.QAA06661@nomad.yogotech.com> <14776.4695.816482.749092@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > And the size is allocated inside the application's space? I thought the > > size was allocated inside the kernel, hence the need for the system > > call. > > The system call sets a flag and sets the sigstat stack pointer in the > process struct. Look at the code for "allocating" space for the > signal handler context in the various sendsig() functions. > > > > Bumping the size in the kernel corresponds to using unallocated space > > > beyond the end of the space allocated by the application. > > > > So how would you propose fixing this? In Linux, the minimum size is << > > FreeBSD's minimum size. Either we decrease FreeBSD's minimum size or we > > abort the request, causing these applications to fail. > > I'd suggest reducing FreeBSD's minimum size. Is that acceptable (Bruce)? This is what Marcel suggested, and I argued against, but in the end he was right, but I'm not aware of what effect this would have on the system. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009072233.QAA06837>