On Thu, May 27 2021 at 11:45:26 AM +0100, Peter Maydell
wrote:
What issue are we trying to fix by making this change ?
I suppose that it wouldn't fix any issues in the current state of
affairs,
maybe it is something to reconsider if glibc ever changes such that,
sigprocmask is no longer MT
On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 11:37, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 27 2021 at 11:16:56 AM +0100, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
> > If we do want to change from sigprocmask() to pthread_sigmask(), we
> > should be consistent about doing that, not just change this call
> > only.)
> On that note, do yo
On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 03:48, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
>
> Use pthread_sigmask instead of sigprocmask inside process_pending_signals
> to ensure that race conditions aren't possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hamza Mahfooz
> ---
> linux-user/signal.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-
On Thu, May 27 2021 at 11:16:56 AM +0100, Peter Maydell
wrote:
If we do want to change from sigprocmask() to pthread_sigmask(), we
should be consistent about doing that, not just change this call
only.)
On that note, do you think it would worthwhile to have a Coccinelle
script replace all
Use pthread_sigmask instead of sigprocmask inside process_pending_signals
to ensure that race conditions aren't possible.
Signed-off-by: Hamza Mahfooz
---
linux-user/signal.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c
index 7ee
Use pthread_sigmask instead of sigprocmask inside process_pending_signals
to ensure that race conditions aren't possible.
Signed-off-by: Hamza Mahfooz
---
linux-user/signal.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c
index 7ee
