[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zhtzsngn.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 18:39:04 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at nptl init and thread creation
* Rich Felker:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:05:20PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> There has been presumptions about signals being blocked when the thread
>> exits throughout this email thread. Out of curiosity, what code is
>> responsible for disabling signals in this situation ? Related to this,
>> is it valid to access a IE model TLS variable from a signal handler at
>> _any_ point where the signal handler nests over thread's execution ?
>> This includes early start and just before invoking the exit system call.
>
> It should be valid to access *any* TLS object like this, but the
> standards don't cover it well.
C++ makes it undefined:
<http://eel.is/c++draft/support.signal#def:evaluation,signal-safe>
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists