| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
until the mq notification event arrives, it is mandatory that signals
be blocked. otherwise, a signal can be received, and its handler
executed, in a thread which does not yet exist on the abstract
machine.
after the point of the event arriving, having signals blocked is not a
conformance requirement but a QoI requirement. while the application
can unblock any signals it wants unblocked in the event handler
thread, if they did not start out blocked, it could not block them
without a race window where they are momentarily unblocked, and this
would preclude controlled delivery or other forms of acceptance
(sigwait, etc.) anywhere in the application.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
this avoids leaving behind transient resource consumption whose
cleanup is subject to scheduling behavior.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
in the error path where the mq_notify syscall fails, the initiating
thread may have closed the socket before the worker thread calls recv
on it. even in the absence of such a race, if the recv call failed,
e.g. due to seccomp policy blocking it, the worker thread could
proceed to close, producing a double-close condition.
this can all be simplified by moving the mq_notify syscall into the
new thread, so that the error case does not require pthread_cancel.
now, the initiating thread only needs to read back the error status
after waiting for the worker thread to consume its arguments.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
semaphores are a much lighter primitive, and more idiomatic with
current usage in the code base.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
why did gcc allow this invalid assignment to compile in the first place?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
