From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=vwOq=AF=gnu.org=samuel.thibault@sourceware.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5534A3858D20
	for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5534A3858D20
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>)
	id 1pnExW-0004Hx-26; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:39:06 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Subject:To:From:
	Date; bh=T3jqSmABm8dDtAAYlKfwA4/Kj79sRPjd2lG/BsYu/3M=; b=QETL4p4t7qTWJvt9WTBz
	cqO+xLW+F2ytue/yKNaDC/sFtRNpajQmo1jrSgrQ7/rb8fDjxw7HiEoe1bxDi482r0nEDvlD24Qba
	+1UOHIdTjzDDyhs+KjYR/jgTGqvMM62MklusO744blrwr8HRBeMMfCUnw6fz2gXf2lQeuID8RCuHa
	usOzwecSHfERhX268RsQZ1ozVRDpg9tkhxXN5np06/txcrgeSlD8cK+HrQ7tzOyGnW3/XxO5AcXQE
	B9E0zst2Yu3nyNZCuUeOvSSNAybg5CalTX4uHN6zPnLvgf6YwiB+g3jmK6kmGDwRGz56jhMSOG8Fk
	bFxbJ/WmmvdUGw==;
Received: from laptop-147-210-129-100.labri.fr ([147.210.129.100] helo=begin)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>)
	id 1pnExV-0002zW-K4; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:39:05 -0400
Received: from samy by begin with local (Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>)
	id 1pnEvH-0092ae-2o;
	Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:36:47 +0200
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:36:47 +0200
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
To: Sergey Bugaev <bugaevc@gmail.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, bug-hurd@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 24/34] hurd: Only check for TLS initialization
 inside rtld or in static builds
Message-ID: <20230414083647.xz2iimas7jgzp4kr@begin>
Mail-Followup-To: Sergey Bugaev <bugaevc@gmail.com>,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, bug-hurd@gnu.org
References: <CAN9u=HeNejJ91mRCy-oZrDKmWZC6KfYyRf0Mz=q9v=LAxf_=sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN9u=HdxsLpupwo9937XyWwrKyUQSHUMK8EaBz_YyJFga7gYeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230412234657.ntztyz7iau55lcwt@begin>
 <CAN9u=HdW51ajNDh1C85ifTGgHSnayDG-8TLss26D2-RX9Kosdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230413101058.wfmy7mb4dexsrbio@begin>
 <CAN9u=HfTode+Fj90g7M86eqHMYxQK-2FhUvxUjhP6+BENZyEYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230413214738.gz2rjnvjvwci7v4o@begin>
 <CAN9u=HcHNikm_6XRdKR9N==6281iy9aBeAxxKXJzYposutDOEQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAN9u=HcHNikm_6XRdKR9N==6281iy9aBeAxxKXJzYposutDOEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: I am not organized
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>

Sergey Bugaev, le ven. 14 avril 2023 11:29:37 +0300, a ecrit:
> But secondly, if we are not destroying the user's reply port, but
> restoring it, then I don't think the "port = MACH_PORT_NULL, arg =
> stale name" case can happen? So we don't need to handle it?
> 
> We should really just assert (arg == port), and this will help us find
> more broken code.

I'd rather aim for that, yes.

Samuel