Hi, On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:40:43PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:42:52AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote:
> > But if Mach actually knows C strings, are you sure the kernel > > doesn't actually perform the check for 0-termination itself in the > > IPC code?... > > Yes, I attached gdb to a translator receiving an unterminated string > and the string was indeed unterminated on arrival. OK. > Also, I don't think Mach's IPC knows about C strings, only MIG. Indeed it probably doesn't... I guess it's just a byte array at Mach level. It wasn't clear to me what happens excatly from a quick glance -- and I have no time presently for a closer look :-( > I still don't see how changing MIG is invasive... As I said, it requires someone to say, "yes, this is the right thing to do; please commit". On a technical side, you have to decide what error code MiG should return in this case. I don't think there is any appropriate one yet, which means you will have to add a new one, and make clients cope with it... That's what I mean by invasive -- it could have far-reaching consequences. Not saying though that it shouldn't be done nonetheless... :-) BTW, if someone actually does take a stab at that, I think it would be nice to also look into proper, not size-limited string support at the same time... AIUI, the way it is handled now, the claim that Hurd has no arbitrary limitations of file name size etc. is simply a lie. -antrik-
