[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2023 20:50:15 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mq_notify: fix close/recv race on failure path
On 2023-02-11 20:13, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>> --- a/src/thread/pthread_detach.c
>> +++ b/src/thread/pthread_detach.c
>> @@ -5,8 +5,12 @@ static int __pthread_detach(pthread_t t)
>> {
>> /* If the cas fails, detach state is either already-detached
>> * or exiting/exited, and pthread_join will trap or cleanup. */
>> - if (a_cas(&t->detach_state, DT_JOINABLE, DT_DETACHED) !=
>> DT_JOINABLE)
>> + if (a_cas(&t->detach_state, DT_JOINABLE, DT_DETACHED) !=
>> DT_JOINABLE) {
>> + int cs;
>> + __pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE, &cs);
>> return __pthread_join(t, 0);
> ^^^^^^ I think you forgot to rework this.
>> + __pthread_setcancelstate(cs, 0);
>> + }
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> I see no other obvious missteps, though.
>
Same here, apart from this and misspelled "pthred_detach" in the commit
message, the patches look good to me.
Regarding the POSIX requirement to run sigev_notify_function in the
context of a detached thread, while it's possible to observe the wrong
detachstate for a short while via pthread_getattr_np after these
patches, I'm not sure there is a standard way to do that. Even if it
exists, this minor issue may be not worth caring about.
Thanks,
Alexey
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.
