On Mon, 7 May 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 5/7/07, Davi Arnaut <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See Linus's message on this same thread.
>
> No. I'm talking about the userlevel side, not kernel side.
>
> If a thread is canceled *after* it returns from the syscall but before
> it reports the event to the call (i.e., while still in the syscall
> wrapper, thread cancellation rules require a check there) the event is
> lost.
read(2) is a cancellation point too. So if the fine userspace code issues
a random pthread_cancel() to a thread handling that, data is lost together
with the session that thread was handling. Hmm, I wonder how the world
could have functioned so far.
Bottom line is, if you really want to throw random cancels to your worker
threads, you better wrap them into pthread_cleanup_push(). Because
otherwise, no matter where your cancel hits, you end up with a broken
system.
- Davide
-
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]
