On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:38:27AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > --- head/sbin/hastd/primary.c Fri Aug 27 20:48:12 2010 > > (r211895) > > +++ head/sbin/hastd/primary.c Fri Aug 27 20:49:06 2010 > > (r211896) > > @@ -1988,7 +1988,9 @@ guard_thread(void *arg) > > rw_unlock(&hio_remote_lock[ii]); > > } > > } > > - (void)cv_timedwait(&hio_guard_cond, &hio_guard_lock, timeout); > > + /* Sleep only if a signal wasn't delivered in the meantime. */ > > + if (!sigexit_received && !sighup_received && !sigchld_received) > > + cv_timedwait(&hio_guard_cond, &hio_guard_lock, timeout); > > mtx_unlock(&hio_guard_lock); > > } > > /* NOTREACHED */ > I wanted to say that this is racy, because if a signal is delivered after > the check is done but before the sleep, you loose.
Yes, I know it is racy, but the race isn't critical anymore, as we will eventually wait at most 10 seconds to handle signals. > After looking at the signal handler, I noted that you call not async-safe > functions in the handler. This is easy way to get undefined behaviour, > i.e. probably crash. And wakeup from the handler would have the same > race as sigXXX_received check. Which aren't async-safe? pthread stuff? -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com p...@freebsd.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgpY5zEzEStit.pgp
Description: PGP signature
