DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 56GFb6VO3194039
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 56GFb6VO3194039
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=DnvRpNKl
X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 162F93857711
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1752680226;
	bh=W3S/IJHnWVqMuq5pFyQz4l4lIFuG1PS+zhPFCuSWF9I=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc:
	From;
	b=DnvRpNKlQYRTF2RRW8YGD4QU+pzngcLFUjFil/6aVcMauOMXsn7EOywXyaS63JoUc
	NpqyWzdaDxbdAd7hbwz4yFivxaFxf6svJCwupR+52fNBm7W+41HCEtvIYRXS5AlhuB
	pTPZlD7tHXP2A74XxtZjZ2SqYf2OJlRdb/nT5Djo=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 13B853857BB6
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:36:42 +0200
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Calling system() in multi-threads.
Message-ID:	<aHfHCqD2xZcdyu7u@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20250617215411 DOT ebf69d1c18b55191a1b76c01 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<eb7786ee-dc7a-4689-9d17-b842e581d7c7 AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<20250618203127 DOT 71ac180de11230a9a6055185 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<20250716235236 DOT 96055ec145d9a0528b50c357 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20250716235236.96055ec145d9a0528b50c357@nifty.ne.jp>
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.30
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Cc:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Jul 16 23:52, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:31:27 +0900
> Takashi Yano wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:42:26 -0700
> > Mark Geisert wrote:
> > > Hi Takashi,
> > > 
> > > On 6/17/2025 5:54 AM, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > If system() is called in parallel in threads, system()
> > > > fails with exit code 127.
> > > > 
> > > > Just compile pthread_system.c attached and run.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe system() is multi-thread safe so the STC
> > > > should work.
> > > 
> > > I regret to inform that system() is not currently MT-safe.  I discovered 
> > > this a few years ago when porting YAFU (Yet Another Factoring Utility).
> > > 
> > > I ended up supplying a wrapper that serialized the system() call itself 
> > > but allowed multiple wrappers (and thus child processes) to be running 
> > > at the same time.  I never got around to supplying a fix for Cygwin. 
> > > I've attached the code.
> > > HTH somehow,
> > 
> > Thanks for the information. I guess the cause is that accessing
> > child_info_spawn NO_COPY ch_spawn;
> > in spwan.cc conflicts with other threads. I wonder ch_spawn should
> > be thread-specific. Or should be guarded by lock.
> 
> Do you have any idea?

Locking would be super-simple.

But theoretically it should be possible to use a local child_info_spawn
variable at this point.  The ch_spawn child_info_spawn instance is not
copied to the child anyway, so that should be safe.  The same goes for
posix_spawn() then, btw.

I checked the sources and I don't see any dependency to ch_spawn
from a spawning process, in contrast to an exec'ing process.  That
doesn't mean there is none, just that I didn't find any.


Corinna

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

- Raw text -