From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb  4 18:04:39 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEEEAF6;
 Mon,  4 Feb 2013 18:04:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jilles@stack.nl)
Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay02.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::104])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD36FFF5;
 Mon,  4 Feb 2013 18:04:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from snail.stack.nl (snail.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::131])
 by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D348359308;
 Mon,  4 Feb 2013 19:04:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: by snail.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1677)
 id 4C4AB2848C; Mon,  4 Feb 2013 19:04:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:04:36 +0100
From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: kern/175674: sem_open() should use O_EXLOCK with open() instead
 of a separate flock() call
Message-ID: <20130204180435.GA21245@stack.nl>
References: <201302032100.r13L01PG044439@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <CAF6rxgmmftGBtMm4fOoExLgRz3RDd=omEP4zkW4wtLuq=T-Q6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130204173830.K1078@besplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130204173830.K1078@besplex.bde.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org,
 Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:04:39 -0000

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 05:45:40PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Eitan Adler wrote:
> > On 3 February 2013 16:00, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> The following reply was made to PR kern/175674; it has been noted by GNATS.
> >> > The best way to fix this is in kern_openat() in the kernel but this
> >> > might cause compatibility issues.

> >>  Not sure if there would be serious compatibility problems if
> >>  open() would automatically restart instead of returning EINTR.  It
> >>  definitely seems a rather intrusive change though.

> > I can not see major application breakage should open(3) be changed.

> > That said,  I am confused by jilles' comment:
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/open.html
> > open(3) is permitted to return EINTR.

> Actually, open(3) is _required_ to return EINTR (if a signal occurs).

> This hasn't changed since the old (2001) POSIX draft that I quoted in a
> more detailed reply.  The wording is "shall fail...[with EINTR] if a
> signal was caught during open()".  Only a perverse implementation of
> weaselnix would justify not returning EINTR by not catching signals.

Many more functions have an [EINTR] error condition specified and
SA_RESTART is usually not mentioned.

This is because SA_RESTART is specified in the sigaction() page to
override the [EINTR] error unless explicitly specified otherwise (for
example, read(), write(), sleep(), select() and pselect()). There is a
change in POSIX.1-2008 for functions with timeouts.

-- 
Jilles Tjoelker