Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 11:48:45 +0300, a ecrit:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:50 AM Samuel Thibault
> wrote:
> > Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 02 avril 2023 15:22:33 +0300, a ecrit:
> > > I propose the following: before resetting the exception port, glibc
> > > would fetch the previous one,
Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 23:27:35 +0300, a ecrit:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:57 PM Samuel Thibault
> wrote:
> > Had you actually tested it on i386? It seems to be breaking the
> > testsuite completely. I would expect that a submitted patch series has
> > gone through the testsuite.
>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:15 PM Samuel Thibault
wrote:
>
> Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 10:44:17 +0300, a ecrit:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:03 AM Samuel Thibault
> > wrote:
> > > I tend to be very cautious with reply port reuse since it can confuse
> > > servers a lot when e.g. inter
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:57 PM Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Had you actually tested it on i386? It seems to be breaking the
> testsuite completely. I would expect that a submitted patch series has
> gone through the testsuite.
Ouch!
I have tested that it works on i386, as in I was able
Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 11:00:27 +0300, a ecrit:
> Side note, I really really dislike this idea of some code still referencing
> port names that are no longer valid / deallocated / reused by someone else.
> This is really prone to use-after-frees. Typically we'd solve this by
> leaving
Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 10:44:17 +0300, a ecrit:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:03 AM Samuel Thibault
> wrote:
> > I tend to be very cautious with reply port reuse since it can confuse
> > servers a lot when e.g. interrupted, so it's generally safer not to try
> > to reuse them.
>
> Hu
I have reverted that change for now, so we get back to a working glibc.
Samuel
Samuel Thibault, le mar. 11 avril 2023 20:57:05 +0200, a ecrit:
> Hello,
>
> Had you actually tested it on i386? It seems to be breaking the
> testsuite completely. I would expect that a submitted patch series has
> g
Samuel Thibault, le mar. 11 avril 2023 20:57:05 +0200, a ecrit:
> Had you actually tested it on i386? It seems to be breaking the
> testsuite completely. I would expect that a submitted patch series has
> gone through the testsuite.
>
> Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 19 mars 2023 18:10:07 +0300, a ecrit:
Hello,
Had you actually tested it on i386? It seems to be breaking the
testsuite completely. I would expect that a submitted patch series has
gone through the testsuite.
Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 19 mars 2023 18:10:07 +0300, a ecrit:
> When glibc is built as a shared library, TLS is always initializ
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:50 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 02 avril 2023 15:22:33 +0300, a ecrit:
> > I propose the following: before resetting the exception port, glibc
> > would fetch the previous one, and if it's non-null, it will perform a
> > special synchronous RPC on it
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:07 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I believe we still want to use
>
> mach_port_t port = get_reply_port();
>
> because the caller might not know whether its port is still valid
> or not, e.g. when a signal interrupted the RPC and thus we had to
> deallocate the reply port to
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:03 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I tend to be very cautious with reply port reuse since it can confuse
> servers a lot when e.g. interrupted, so it's generally safer not to try
> to reuse them.
Huh? Confuse how?
For one thing, the servers are unable to even tell if two se
12 matches
Mail list logo
