On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:37:55 +0100 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Takashi, > > On Nov 26 17:55, Takashi Yano wrote: > > The queue is once cleaned up, however, sigpacket::process() may set > > si_signo in the queue to 0 by calling sig_clear(). This patch adds > > another loop for cleanup after calling sigpacket::process(). > > > > Addresses: https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2024-November/256744.html > > Fixes: 9d2155089e87 ("(wait_sig): Define variable q to be the start of the > > signal queue. Just iterate through sigq queue, deleting processed or > > zeroed signals") > > Reported-by: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de> > > Reviewed-by: > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp> > > --- > > winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc | 11 +++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc b/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > > index 8f46a80ab..b8d961a07 100644 > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > > @@ -1463,6 +1463,17 @@ wait_sig (VOID *) > > qnext->si.si_signo = 0; > > } > > } > > + /* Cleanup sigq chain. Remove entries having si_signo == 0. > > + There were once cleaned obeve, however sigpacket::process() > > + may set si_signo to 0 using sig_clear(). */ > > + q = &sigq.start; > > + while ((qnext = q->next)) > > + { > > + if (qnext->si.si_signo) > > + q = qnext; > > + else > > + q->next = qnext->next; > > + } > > I'm not quite sure, but wouldn't it make more sense to change > sig_clear() so that it actually removes the entries from the queue > immediately? Using Interlocked functions on the queue may even > avoid locking...
Yeah, indeed. I have submitted v3 patch. -- Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
