Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.

[Florian Weimer]

On 12/04/2013 06:30 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 05:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 12/03/2013 04:27 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>>> I think that's certainly the right start. File a defect with the
>>> Austin Group tracker and ask them the following things:
>>>
>>> * What if any unintended consequences could there be if the
>>>     implementation choose to save and restore errno during
>>>     signal handling?
>>>
>>> * Was it ever POSIX's intent to allow a signal handler to
>>>     modify the errno of the interrupted code sequence or was
>>>     that simply a consequence of being a signal handler and
>>>     modifying global state?
>>>
>>> ... and anything else you think we should get an expert opinion
>>> on before embarking upon a change like this.
>>
>> Okay, I tried to summarize the previous discussion there:
>>
>> <http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=807>
>
> Interesting response from Geoff Clare:
>
> "If we make any change as a result of this issue, I think it should
> just be to make it explicit that implementations are allowed, but
> not required, to restore errno on return from signal handlers."
>
> Which would be a nice addition and clarification to the standard.

How likely is that the Austin Group will ever close this ticket, even 
with a indeterminate conclusion like "the standard does not specify 
errno-restoring behavior"?  How long should we wait for such a 
resolution?  (I think it's too late for this change for 2.19 anyway.)

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team