On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300 > Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > > > Is this change of behaviour a feature or a bug? > > > > Provide a minimal example demonstrating the issue. > > while preparing the example I found the source of the problem. We have > to block all signals for some reason. The handling for > > signal (SIGTHR, SIG_IGN); > > seems to have changed. The moment I remove above's line from the code, > the program works. There is no difference when the programs runs on > machines prior mid November 2014. > Err, this is a bug, probably both in your program (user code must not twiddle with SIGCANCEL) and in libc. The later, I believe, was fixed in the HEAD r287300, which is not yet merged back to stable/10. The libthr has a protection disallowing user code manipulating SIGCANCEL, but due to the bug in libc signal(3) override the libthr measures.
Apply the r287300 to your src/ and try your unchanged program with updated libc. But yes, SIGTHR/SIGCANCEL in the program is bug. > Thanks for your help. Simplifying the program brought me to the > solution. > > Do you want the example? > > Erich > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
