From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Dan Bonachea <bonachead@comcast.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: pthread-safety bug in write(2) on Linux 2.6.x
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:11:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1144969908.12387.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20060413145913.03436f38@comcast.net>
On Iau, 2006-04-13 at 15:06 -0700, Dan Bonachea wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't leave much ambiguity regarding
> what's required for POSIX compliance on this issue (although I'm not sure
> POSIX compliance is the right metric).
Interesting. That pretty much conflicts with what write(2) itself is
defined as in the same specification, and means that the locking is
specific to posix thread groups not to processes. Well we've always
known that pthreads was a brain dead screw-up of a specification so I
guess that should be no suprise.
If the locking is thread group specific it may actually be best to
handle that one in glibc with a futex lock, as only glibc really knows
what is a posix pthread app, and it would avoid the idiocy escaping into
normal applications (which are 95+% of cases)
What does Ulrich think ?
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-13 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-13 1:45 Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13 2:10 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-04-13 4:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-13 5:33 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-13 15:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 15:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-14 10:20 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-04-13 21:50 ` Alan Cox
2006-04-13 22:06 ` Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13 23:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:11 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2006-04-13 23:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 22:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:05 ` Alan Cox
2006-04-13 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-13 9:18 ` Dan Bonachea
2006-04-13 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-13 10:28 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-04-13 14:14 ` Jan Engelhardt
2010-12-19 22:45 ` Jens Moser
[not found] <60Z8f-4QA-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <611Wl-u5-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <616k2-6Xz-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-04-14 9:14 ` Kai Henningsen
2006-04-27 9:06 Samuel Thibault
2006-04-27 15:23 ` Linus Torvalds
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=1144969908.12387.39.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bonachead@comcast.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®