This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v7] getrandom system call wrapper [BZ #17252]

On 11/17/2016 02:45 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On 11/17/2016 08:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/16/2016 05:41 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Florian Weimer <>
On 11/16/2016 04:20 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I am seriously considering escalating my disagreement here to a
formal objection.  I would like to know why you think it is
NECESSARY - not merely convenient or consistent with other stuff -
for this function to be a cancellation point.

It's necessary if you ever want to cancel a hanging getrandom in a
context where you cannot install a signal handler (so that you can
trigger EINTR when getrandom is stuck).

That only pushes the question back a level.  When would it ever be
necessary to do that?  Be as concrete as you possibly can.  Actual
code from a real program, if possible.

It's not clear to me what you are asking here.

Do you mean cancellation in general, or cancellation in conjunction with
getrandom specifically?

Sorry.  I meant cancellation specifically of a thread hanging in getrandom.

I'm not sure how I can provide that, considering that there is currently no way to cancel a thread which hangs in getrandom because we do not provide a way for applications to implement system calls as cancellation points (unless we provide a wrapper for the specific system call, of course).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]