From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 2155) id 61839385841A; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:42:59 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61839385841A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1705923779; bh=R5et1jobQhK9KlzBEuArMIWg2TIuMa3Fc0AJT/L14gs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OfvvMmlTfWbbUBKLp1DtQIeN7l7IqeFOJxT3Z+LiX8AfPf9PxF9BWHDQn3RFzet5b QTfX35bbTgBM0CT9Rp3+8bkYlPdFRnKdIX79TWOw/VeCh2+lbFma6cHX3hEaIDwkkj BE6nupxXXD828OR7imwvS54gxV7ocssXVNB7yI3I= Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id EBD4BA80733; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:42:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:42:56 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll Message-ID: Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20240120131825.4157c259fe058155137d6fe0@nifty.ne.jp> <20240120141349.cde31e62177a0405b0ee9934@nifty.ne.jp> <87v87ov03x.fsf@Gerda.invalid> <20240120212427.1e69fd3655ece73ecd508def@nifty.ne.jp> <20240121201051.795a4405576a97ab8729e273@nifty.ne.jp> <87fryqizl3.fsf@> <20240122123023.b8eaac0e50d1e8856f44a115@nifty.ne.jp> <20240122200634.bcb3408c9d4722b9a914afcf@nifty.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240122200634.bcb3408c9d4722b9a914afcf@nifty.ne.jp> List-Id: On Jan 22 20:06, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:25:28 +0100 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jan 22 12:30, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > > PATCH2: (for cygwin) > > > Avoid handle leak caused when non-static pthread_once_t is initialized > > > with PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT > > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > index 7bb4f9fc8..127569160 100644 > > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > @@ -2060,6 +2060,9 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) > > > { > > > init_routine (); > > > once_control->state = 1; > > > + pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); > > > + while (pthread_mutex_destroy (&once_control->mutex) == EBUSY); > > > + return 0; > > > } > > > /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ > > > pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); > > > > I see what you're doing here. Wouldn't it be simpler, though, to do this? > > > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > index 7bb4f9fc8341..7ec3aace395d 100644 > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,7 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) > > } > > /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ > > pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); > > + while (pthread_mutex_destroy (&once_control->mutex) == EBUSY); > > return 0; > > } > > In this code, if several threads call pthread_once() at the same time, > only one thread will succeed pthread_mutex_destroy() and the others > will fail with EINVAL. But it does not matter. The code will be > simpler. Yeah, but you're right. It's cleaner to do this only in the thread actually performing the init action so your original patch makes more sense. Corinna