On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:02:15 +0100
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 5 20:43, Takashi Yano wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 11:51:47 +0100
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Dec 5 12:25, Takashi Yano wrote:
> > > > Currently, the signal queue is touched by the thread sig as well as
> > > > other threads that call sigaction_worker(). This potentially has
> > > > a possibility to destroy the signal queue chain. A possible worst
> > > > result may be a self-loop chain which causes infinite loop. With
> > > > this patch, lock()/unlock() are introduce to avoid such a situation.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 474048c26edf ("* sigproc.cc (pending_signals::add): Just index
> > > > directly into signal array rather than treating the array as a heap.")
> > > > Suggested-by: Corinna Vinschen <cori...@vinschen.de>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Corinna Vinschen <cori...@vinschen.de>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
> > > > ---
> > > > winsup/cygwin/exceptions.cc | 12 +++++------
> > > > winsup/cygwin/local_includes/sigproc.h | 2 +-
> > > > winsup/cygwin/signal.cc | 4 ++--
> > > > winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > LGTM, please push.
> >
> > With the patch
> > [PATCH v3 3/9] Cygwin: signal: Remove queue entry from the queue chain when
> > cleared
> > ?
>
> Erm... wasn't this patch replacing v3 3/9?
>
> Looks like I seriously lost track. Can you please send a small series
> with just the patches you still want to apply?
Sure.
--
Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
