Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: zsh-3.1.9-dev-6 crashes occassionally
- X-seq: zsh-workers 13103
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: zsh-3.1.9-dev-6 crashes occassionally
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:01:03 +0100 (MET)
- In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:51:35 +0000
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Sven wrote:
> > + ALLOWTRAPS {
> > + while ((r = read(SHTTY, &cc, 1)) != 1) {
>
> I suppose you've thought this through more than I have, but wouldn't it be
> safer just to run traps every time the read returns? I'm assuming a signal
> arriving will interrupt the read in any case, so as far as I can see it's
> pretty much equivalent in practise. There's nothing too nasty in the block
> underneath, but it does call zrefresh() and attachtty() which are probably
> best treated as black boxes.
Hmhm. I was about to say that traps are only insecure when they can
execute code the non-trap code currently executes, but, yes, since one
can invoke more and more code from shell code...
Maybe I should have a second (third, fourth,...) look to see if we can
get rid of this ALLOWTRAPS { ... } DISALLOWTRAPS stuff altogether. That
would make me more comfortable, I think.
Unless someone knows of a system where signals don't interrupt things
like read.
Bye
Sven
--
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author