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

[Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>]

Am 1/21/2016 um 7:06 PM schrieb Pedro Alves:
> 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.

I will pick Pedro's suggestion, looks nicer to the user.
Also adding the documentation lines to the Signal part.

>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>

Thanks for the review and additions!
-Fred

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928