Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:19:25 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sched_getcpu

* Tomasz Sterna <> [2016-03-02 21:46:53 +0100]:
> W dniu 01.03.2016, wto o godzinie 17???34 -0500, u??ytkownik Rich Felker
> napisa??:
> > syscall(SYS_exit
> > SYS_exit cannot be used safely unless you have a single-threaded
> > program, and in that case you can use _exit (SYS_exit_group).
> How should I properly terminate current task then?


> > > syscall(SYS_gettid
> > For glibc it's been controversial whether to expose tids as a public
> > API, since it pokes through the pthread abstraction and imposes a 1:1
> > threads implementation.
> I am implementing a threading and mutex API that is different to
> pthread. (Still 1:1 though.)
> Using pthread to do this proved to be cumbersome, but using native
> Linux abstractions turned out to be pretty straightforward.

that's not possible in c

the semantics (memory model, libc internals..) assume
that threads can only be created by the c runtime.

in theory you can create you own threads, but you have
to know what you are doing (no libc calls, no tls)
but then you are implementing your own libc

> > syscall(SYS_tgkill
> > tgkill also requires tids to be exposed an potentially has other
> > issues, and doesn't seem to offer anything that pthread_kill doesn't.
> As above - using pthreads is not the good way to do it in my case.

what you are doing is undefined behaviour.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.