From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386D43858D20 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:33:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 386D43858D20 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 ) id 1pnFoL-0007ks-KN; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:33:41 -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=PgJ1vlaQ8DxWMGjiiP/fzwEcntT0kZD218Cr4U4J++E=; b=ofdW43d/Iku+dPCmTSp1 W6eBCJh0ycCX4TXGzpkEao6KGOuWsDBLHsJ2HCnj6tNLSZY8LF55MuGyyEGnUPdSAd/48bPHaiRxY ViARINlhlNpoQ/FqWWRTVX8rjUglLpn5Rt789xRAC5o/ALRzA4oE4FqI1MHQsoZcDSHaa9W0WK2mU a+B2rmwb+T2QFHzEy+kSeZtFamHX5oiCH6EcT93PRtqtpUG6W0pUBN/3goC7vfEynYB4Q87CQBKhC NLE+5OyvuKuFujJutIv+Mi7nE+yrMjzrqCGVpB1rqNPVUFJu5fnUWXpyIjgv4Jio50c1vg/TeFQVY LwgwlMUcoQoblQ==; 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 ) id 1pnFoG-0004Gw-Th; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:33:41 -0400 Received: from samy by begin with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1pnFm3-009Nk6-0j; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:31:19 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:31:19 +0200 From: Samuel Thibault To: Sergey Bugaev 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: <20230414093119.yo5plbpqqlkgpoeu@begin> Mail-Followup-To: Sergey Bugaev , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, bug-hurd@gnu.org References: <20230412234657.ntztyz7iau55lcwt@begin> <20230413101058.wfmy7mb4dexsrbio@begin> <20230413214738.gz2rjnvjvwci7v4o@begin> <20230414083647.xz2iimas7jgzp4kr@begin> <20230414090957.yh3cds6bzoxmiu55@begin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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: Sergey Bugaev via Libc-alpha, le ven. 14 avril 2023 12:23:00 +0300, a ecrit: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:12 PM Samuel Thibault > wrote: > > Sergey Bugaev via Libc-alpha, le ven. 14 avril 2023 11:53:43 +0300, a ecrit: > > > It's in _hurdsig_abort_rpcs, if the interrupt_operation call fails. > > > > > > Let's maybe not do that either? We're already making mach_msg seem to > > > have returned EINTR, which intr-msg knows how to handle. > > > > Mmm, yes, but we need to make *sure* we don't re-use the port and > > that it gets dropped at some point not too far, otherwise the > > server will stay stuck trying to reply. > > We should drop the reply port before waiting for the signal handler to > run, since the handler may block -- is that what you're saying? That's a kind of scenario indeed. I don't know if it's actually exercised in the wild, but I wouldn't be surprised. Samuel