>> It seems so far, from not really paying attention, that there is >> nothing wrong with ghc but that there is a bug in the kernel. > Yes of course no userland code should be able to crash the kernel :D
I used to think so. Then it occurred to me that there are various ways for userland to crash the kernel which are perfectly reasonable, where of course "reasonable" is a vague term, meaning maybe something like "I don't think they indicate anything in need of fixing". Perhaps the simplest is dd if=/dev/urandom bs=65536 of=/dev/mem but there are others. Yet I can't help feeling that there is some sense in which it *is* fair to say that userland should never be able to crash the kernel. I have been mulling over this paradox for some time but have not come up with an alternative phrasing that avoids the reasonable crashes while still capturing a significant fraction of the useful meaning. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B