X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=default; b=G/O4
	/7PxBFl7lyuKMEt5O/wv4aTrE4lWjlsmslfctcySu0k0Wl9emfnWOQAIoJbo3PsJ
	b0D0Oo0uVHwZe+2p5WSBsIV4SPYjbZyVsl+kSNysUojrtI8oZzTHbFuX3RVWXcX9
	bqDG4CVrvV1pqTlEawCucFD2WGs+GBq+wvFYE8U=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=8XYGIdhOF4
	ynqd2BcLkPXWG35Tc=; b=oHByzJ5BiqCSby9KT7JN3aLRPgVbQ5NJlgPmjSg7eX
	+BmAtYKZeesSbvDATJo4GTmdSrLyienUar5ihVbifY8Uu2qOVCSeV6rY4/hrdDVn
	McejvnWK/0dreEeL8AZA/J4Lr7k+78LgErppP3FbDcz42JbRuM4CTnLo4LKlSeBf
	I=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=conclusion, HX-Received:Sat, receipt, mutual
X-HELO:	mail-qk0-f180.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=S07ne2bG/DubGcR/bv7hJZpWJK9N0DzkqL6YfBAplCA=; b=thd47V2TLlotYUHVoY9CX4gBSWF/1Nbhx1JXIDW194enV8APdfhRhNVk+T4wo7vcNB c+9zyF/tYL0/nmYo98unIwk3ItHoRVQPEkdhICoVemDgR7HR+C07fE4uopOWY8k0xnHl soAwZ7KIq6eTlqUVEmwzbrVQYyWvDovITNL5EnU7W6cnTBgVDZv9VM0qJraYOLQ9I7Ty uCshXfbn/7rUCxTzWzO+MBC3HkANM6vvqXePlQJRQZBBm6xoCxXq01LsXo+YfqAhwpJe wjYAcOXIz6nXsMt9WVwV+9e9Kl2Qy7OKhS5DjvogAtWOyBY1r9+bSmfAUOXv8drSuIPF j8rA==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AHYfb5jqK9fvhozO4XhZ/FWt6dv2/uhSntpnCpNtWH+DiXKVttl2RNBj 6+k8e9P4YYYIAMnK
X-Received:	by 10.55.165.65 with SMTP id o62mr14470171qke.347.1503129675268; Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:01:10 -0700
From:	Noah Misch <noah AT leadboat DOT com>
To:	Houder <houder AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Signal delivered while blocked
Message-ID:	<20170819080110.GA4022431@rfd.leadboat.com>
References:	<20170804074445 DOT GB3154757 AT rfd DOT leadboat DOT com> <8f7f7f8ae098c1321f608645c750cae4 AT smtp-cloud7 DOT xs4all DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<8f7f7f8ae098c1321f608645c750cae4@smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:07AM +0200, Houder wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 00:44:45, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The attached demonstration program blocks signals (with sigprocmask()) to
> > achieve mutual exclusion between signal handlers.  It aborts upon receipt of a
> > blocked signal.  On "CYGWIN_NT-10.0 2.7.0(0.306/5/3) 2017-02-12 13:18 x86_64",
> > signals regularly arrive despite being blocked.  Essential parts of the
> > program include handling two signal numbers and having handlers run for at
> > least 1-2ms; this problem goes away if I remove one of those attributes.
> > GNU/Linux, AIX, Solaris, and "CYGWIN_NT-6.0 1.7.27(0.271/5/3) 2013-12-09 11:57
> > i686" never deliver a blocked signal to this program.  I think this Cygwin
> > behavior is non-conforming.

> I do not think that Cygwin is the problem here; your code is the problem
> here, I believe.
> 
> Please, study, for example, chapters 20 and 21 of LPI (Linux Programming
> Interface by Michael Kerrisk).
> 
> (20.10 The Signal Mask (Blocking Signal Delivery)
> (20.13 Changing Signal Dispositions: sigaction())
> 
> You cannot use sigprocmask() like you do; you cannot use SIG_SETMASK as
> a parameter in sigprocmask() within the context of a handler.

What words in those chapters prompted your conclusion?  I see nothing in 20.10
or 20.13 about contextual restrictions on SIG_SETMASK.  Posix mentions no such
restrictions in its sigprocmask() page, and Posix does say:

  The following table defines a set of functions that shall be
  async-signal-safe. Therefore, applications can call them, without restriction,
  from signal-catching functions.
  ...
  sigprocmask()
  -- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html

> Cygwin exhibits misbehaviour in case of your code, because it is slower
> than Linux; however, the code is also wrong for Linux.
> 
> The misbehaviour occurs as result of nested interrupts in case of your
> code (yes, nested interrupts are possible with Linux/Unix!).
> However your code does not experience nesting under Linux, because, as
> I said, Linux is faster than Cygwin.

My code *does* experience signal handler nesting on Linux.  In fact, handlers
nest far more quickly than they do under Cygwin.  However, all its nesting
under Linux takes place outside the sigprocmask()-bounded critical section.
The algorithm that inspired this test case tolerates that nesting, but it does
not tolerate nesting within the critical section.

> The simplest way to exclude one signal from another, is to specify the
> signal (or signals) in the sa_mask of the sigaction parameter ...

That is true.  However, as you discovered in your other thread, it is not an
effective workaround for $SUBJECT.

nm

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -