From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <rv@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] posix: New Linux posix_spawn{p} implementation
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd382ca8-0aed-cf41-4209-34fab75029a0@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874m5iz4ts.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
On 14/09/2016 15:58, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14 2016, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> I think patch is ok and fixes the issues you noted about using the pipe2
>> call to signal the execv issue. It just have one remark about it below.
>>
>>
>>> @@ -280,14 +267,12 @@ __spawni_child (void *arguments)
>>> (2.15). */
>>> maybe_script_execute (args);
>>>
>>> - ret = -errno;
>>> -
>>> fail:
>>> - /* Since sizeof errno < PIPE_BUF, the write is atomic. */
>>> - ret = -ret;
>>> - if (ret)
>>> - while (write_not_cancel (p, &ret, sizeof ret) < 0)
>>> - continue;
>>> + /* errno should have an appropriate non-zero value, but make sure
>>> + that's the case so that our parent knows we failed to
>>> + exec. There's no EUNKNOWN or EINTERNALBUG, so we use a value
>>> + which is clearly bogus. */
>>> + args->err = errno ? : EHOSTDOWN;
>>> _exit (SPAWN_ERROR);
>>> }
>>
>> I would prefer an assert call here to ensure errno is non zero for
>> failure case instead of reporting a bogus errno to program. Since
>> this unexpected issue is either something wrong being reported from
>> kernel or an underlying bug it would be better to fail at once than
>> instead to document on manuals that this is potentially an unknown
>> issue.
>
> But asserting/aborting in the child doesn't really solve the problem; we
> still need to write some non-zero value for the parent to pick up once
> we're gone. We could of course write -1 to indicate this really
> exceptional situation, but that still leaves deciding how to handle that
> in the parent. IMO an assert/abort is a little too harsh, but then the
> parent has to return _some_ error code to its caller.
My idea is to in fact not return to parent, but rather terminate program
execution in face of an unknown issue. However, I do not have a strong
opinion if it should be really the desirable behaviour and thinking twice
it does seems that aborting program is too harsh. I think -1 would be
suffice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-14 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-01 16:21 [PATCH 0/3] posix: Execute file function fixes Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-01 16:21 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] posix: Remove dynamic memory allocation from execl{e,p} Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-01 16:52 ` Joseph Myers
2016-02-01 17:18 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-01 17:54 ` Joseph Myers
2016-02-01 18:09 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-02 11:24 ` Florian Weimer
2016-02-02 12:46 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2016-02-02 12:47 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-02 16:33 ` Rich Felker
2016-02-07 21:28 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-02-09 11:36 ` Richard Henderson
2016-02-09 13:30 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2016-02-10 16:36 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-01 16:21 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] posix: execvpe cleanup Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-01 16:21 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] posix: New Linux posix_spawn{p} implementation Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-02 13:06 ` Florian Weimer
2016-02-02 13:31 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-03 11:07 ` Torvald Riegel
2016-02-03 12:05 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-02-03 12:06 ` Torvald Riegel
2016-02-03 12:14 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-08-31 21:13 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-08-31 22:08 ` Joseph Myers
2016-09-01 9:28 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-14 13:13 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-14 18:58 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-14 19:59 ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2016-09-20 20:25 ` Florian Weimer
2016-09-20 20:54 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-20 21:01 ` [PATCH] linux: spawni.c: simplify error reporting to parent Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-22 20:54 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-23 5:21 ` Florian Weimer
2016-09-23 19:09 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-23 19:28 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-23 20:37 ` Florian Weimer
2016-09-27 20:26 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-27 21:14 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-09-28 14:14 ` Rich Felker
2016-09-28 15:03 ` Andreas Schwab
2016-09-28 15:22 ` Rich Felker
2016-09-28 18:13 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2016-10-06 12:52 ` Florian Weimer
2016-09-06 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] posix: New Linux posix_spawn{p} implementation Rasmus Villemoes
2016-09-14 19:37 ` Adhemerval Zanella
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cd382ca8-0aed-cf41-4209-34fab75029a0@linaro.org \
--to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=rv@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).