From: Li Wang <li.wang@linux.dev>
To: linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] openposix: timers/twoevtimers: Wait for both timer signals
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2026 17:06:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asoAKV-Wd-TK5XUe@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261009172601.34695-1-linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com>
Hi Jan,
linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2026, Jan Stancek via ltp wrote:
> > openposix: timers/twoevtimers: Wait for both timer signals
>
> > + PTS_WRITE_MSG("Caught abort signal\n");
> > + PTS_WRITE_MSG("Caught alarm signal\n");
> > + if (errno != EINTR) {
> > + perror("nanosleep() did not return success\n");
> > + return PTS_UNRESOLVED;
> > + }
>
> Medium: PTS_WRITE_MSG() calls write() without preserving errno. If the
> second signal arrives after nanosleep() sets EINTR but before the new
> errno check, a failed handler write (e.g. EAGAIN on a full nonblocking
> stdout pipe) causes a spurious unresolved result even when both timers
> fired. Save errno on entry and restore it before returning in both
> handlers.
The race condition pointed out by the AI seems plausible. Would it make
sense to save and restore errno in the signal handlers, like this:
static void handler_abrt(int signo PTS_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
+ int saved_errno = errno;
+
PTS_WRITE_MSG("Caught abort signal\n");
caughtabort++;
+
+ errno = saved_errno;
+
}
static void handler_alrm(int signo PTS_ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
+ int saved_errno = errno;
+
PTS_WRITE_MSG("Caught alarm signal\n");
caughtalarm++;
+
+ errno = saved_errno;
}
The rest part looks good to me.
--
Regards,
Li Wang
--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-10 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-09 6:49 [LTP] [PATCH] openposix: timers/twoevtimers: Wait for both timer signals Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-10-09 10:09 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-10-09 10:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2] " Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-10-09 17:26 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-10-10 9:06 ` Li Wang [this message]
2026-10-10 9:42 ` Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-10-11 1:07 ` Li Wang
2026-10-12 4:56 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3] " Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-10-12 7:19 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
2026-10-12 8:03 ` [LTP] [PATCH v4] " Jan Stancek via ltp
2026-10-12 9:33 ` Petr Vorel
2026-10-12 15:47 ` [LTP] " linuxtestproject.agent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=asoAKV-Wd-TK5XUe@linux.dev \
--to=li.wang@linux.dev \
--cc=linuxtestproject.agent@gmail.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.