Re: FW: [PATCH V4 6/6] Intel MPX bound violation handling.

Pedro Alves
2016-01-21T18:06:12Z

On 01/21/2016 05:51 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:34:12 +0100
>> From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>

>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault upper bound
>> violation - bounds @{lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023@} accessing
>> 0x60302f.
>
> I still think the word "address" should be added after "accessing".
>
> But if no one else thinks it's important, I don't insist.

I'd think that accessing 0x60302f would be the most important
information here, and so it should be printed before the bounds even.
Say:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
Upper bound violation while accessing address 0x60302f
Bounds: {lbound = 0x603010, ubound = 0x603023}

Note we still repeat the string "bound" 4 times. Maybe we
could reduce that:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
Upper bound violation while accessing address 0x60302f
Bounds: [lower = 0x603010, upper = 0x603023]

But maybe lbound/ubound already have defined meaning to
the user.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves