From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id C09913857415; Wed,  6 Apr 2022 14:46:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C09913857415
From: "adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug nptl/29029] poll() spuriously returns EINTR during thread
 cancellation and with cancellation disabled
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:46:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: nptl
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.34
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: security-
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-29029-131-RWfTEbHRWm@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-29029-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-29029-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-bugs/>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:46:14 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29029

--- Comment #6 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot or=
g> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5)
> (In reply to Adhemerval Zanella from comment #4)
> > Maybe one option would be to block the SIGCANCEL on the function noted =
on
> > signal(7) that never restarted after being interrupted if the cancellat=
ion
> > is disabled, and then re-enable the signal after the function returns (=
on
> > SYSCALL_CANCEL).
>=20
> Technically yes, but it optimizes the wrong case because cancellation is
> rare in most programs (or might never happen). Two extra system calls per
> poll seems excessive.

It seems that to fix the Linux behavious we will need to really avoid sendi=
ng
the SIGCANCEL unless the asynchrnous mode is enabled. I am really not found=
 of
the old code complexity...

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=