Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:15:59 +0100 From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sem_wait and EINTR On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 07:32:38PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > One other thought: would it be preferable for the EINTR suppression in > the absence of interruptible signal handlers to be in __timedwait > rather than sem_timedwait? Then any code using __timedwait would > benefit from it. I'm not sure if there are other callers where it > would help but it wouldn't hurt either. > > Rich Nope, that would not help. I had a look at all users of SYS_futex that might be impacted by the kernel bug you mentioned (and followed them back to the public interfaces that use them). Only __timedwait does anything with the return value at all, and of all the users of __timedwait(), sem_timedwait() is the only function even specified to return EINTR. All others are specified to *never* return EINTR. At least according to the manpages I have here (manpages-posix). So only sem_timedwait() needs this patch. For the other users it would hurt conformance. Ciao, Markus
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.