On 2/7/06, Jeff Dike <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nope, that would be the next step if this turned out to be untenable,
> which I guess it is.
You have to do it if you want to keep using the setjmp interface.
> You're actually encrypting them somehow? How? And why?
For security reasons.
> Is there a reason there can't be an API for looking at the contents of
> a jmp_buf?
It's not needed. There is no reason to look at the content of the
struct except if you do something which isn't guaranteed by the spec.
I'll definitely not add such an interface. If you need this
functionality, implement it yourself. setjmp is most likely overkill
anyway.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
