From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23BE13858D1E for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:43:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 23BE13858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1690987409; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=i1gsy8lg5AX3sS38b0Lgk2rft79QSqNvXxQEn+JOdEg=; b=h74pYZYGEIHIqDQ7EMclbCJpSHF2rxPYaB6dsi+hZJWAAzI2U5ol6e//k3znGZosZN3iBI 2uRUyxnjEkqafGC+luVtUGaLVbr3oriBgXfOtS/EsOKJ5/7Z5sG8+CMqL/EHobA4vSu46j zy8TArjh21JVtSJ6cq/pU0PiSdXNHhY= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-587-37k9NNVYPtiRB79PDwCOrQ-1; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 10:43:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 37k9NNVYPtiRB79PDwCOrQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25E2A1044591; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:43:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54E86492B03; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:43:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha , Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] setjmp: Use BSD sematic as default for setjmp References: <20230731171900.4065501-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20230731171900.4065501-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <871qgn5fds.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <40947004-fcac-d50c-feea-3a6512a10d69@linaro.org> <87cz05yivp.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87r0olsjiq.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87jzudshw2.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:43:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Adhemerval Zanella Netto's message of "Wed, 2 Aug 2023 10:29:14 -0300") Message-ID: <87y1itqzck.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: >> Ahh, you mean because use removed the signal unblocking from abort? >> >> If the signal is blocked, it is not delivered before it is unblocked. >> This means that the handler will not observe it blocked. >> >> But POSIX says this: >> >> | The abort() function shall override blocking or ignoring the SIGABRT >> | signal. >> >> It also says: >> >> | The SIGABRT signal shall be sent to the calling process as if by means >> | of raise() with the argument SIGABRT. >> >> Strictly speaking, it is impossible to comply with both requirements, >> but I think the handler is expected to run even if SIGABRT is blocked. >> As far as I understand it, the new code terminates the process in this >> case, without ever running the handler. > > The later has been changed with a new clarification [1]: > > The SIGABRT signal shall be sent to the calling [CX]thread[/CX] as if by > means of raise() with the argument SIGABRT. [CX]If this signal does not > terminate the process (for example, if the signal is caught and the handler > returns), abort() may change the disposition of SIGABRT to SIG_DFL and send > the signal (in the same way) again. If a second signal is sent and it does > not terminate the process, the behavior is unspecified, except that the > abort() call shall not return.[/CX] > > [1] https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=906#c5851 Okay, I missed that change. So removing the unblocking should be okay after this specification change. I still don't see how the removal of unblocking changes the signal mask observed by the signal handler, though. Thanks, Florian