From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28156 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2014 02:25:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28057 invoked by uid 48); 25 Aug 2014 02:25:21 -0000 From: "naesten at gmail dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/4737] fork is not async-signal-safe Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:25:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: std-posix X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: naesten at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED 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: keywords bug_status cc see_also resolution assigned_to Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4737 Samuel Bronson changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |std-posix Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED CC| |naesten at gmail dot com See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=906468 Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Assignee|drepper.fsp at gmail dot com |unassigned at sourceware dot org --- Comment #24 from Samuel Bronson --- Hmm, what we have now says: > When the application calls fork() from a signal handler and any of the > fork handlers registered by pthread_atfork() calls a function that is > not async-signal-safe, the behavior is undefined. I'm pretty sure this does *not* include whatever functions libc itself may decide to install using the same mechanism, especially considering that fork is *still* on the list of functions that must be async-signal-safe. (Of course, listing it there is a bit of a lie, because fork() is clearly *not* without restriction here.) So it looks like the current behavior is not only buggy, but sub-standard. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.