From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B70192B82 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 09:54:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735811650; cv=none; b=Gjk1niwo09Guf41HuJGlX6G4G1sDRLUdfhAH/75yI7ViZDUOhoFQfHoXi/ck2WhCLKF/uhej9eccLauEUA0zgnX/Wl3oxV5zqsSFEvjqd0fiUFqhDzWD3hbnE9tjEP9IueNGIaU1u0cQBL9jIyTmPZ7ARPEcuw32lViJA3pdbJ8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735811650; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MQ4oJiDBMkL0CxlvaZctrn1CkJq0lqKObHw433SKzN4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bVGU2MY2toSOoVFw7vjeJigPD6Y7eKDJ5ZT4Xzwctp7eGGGEwilD9/aZ1rOC9RHqsU02Krn9Ae16eZgV4A0dihOQmddeqkf/tQAfME3K/CExxG9470tY+F4iz5ZbVXDGNnTEBa33ZZHHiWCcNYWHmI+qpt7BLEWBTu8tDDbrdrU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=NenUB6pD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="NenUB6pD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1735811647; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t29vRN4AcgR0ONuC2yvp9vEI7NnQOki3bwxBVYOB3N4=; b=NenUB6pDcHaFTpoxvFoERznkKGi66e8EophXEbU89ettOQCjCLKQpgz2X5XPTkViLhgjwp J8TRYEFeL25wUY2aVchk40GeoGAhfCa0uFTObucwYmpID8RrsWLoJ2Gf1m0lRWPtHZkB5F t5ouVkZo9H9AUwOBwvVizGWhYQ80sPI= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-378-r8vaTpUDNeqAFUfMGg7UKw-1; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 04:54:04 -0500 X-MC-Unique: r8vaTpUDNeqAFUfMGg7UKw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: r8vaTpUDNeqAFUfMGg7UKw Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 988EF1956095; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 09:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.2]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFD219560A2; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 09:54:00 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: Arkadiusz Drabczyk , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, libc-help@sourceware.org Subject: Re: signal(7): why does it say that pthread_mutex_lock() and thread_cond_wait() can fail with EINTR? In-Reply-To: (Alejandro Colomar's message of "Thu, 2 Jan 2025 01:19:38 +0100") References: Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:53:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87ikqxee2y.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 * Alejandro Colomar: >> The underlying futex() call indeed fails with EINTR but it's called >> again by both glibc and musl. > > I've CCed glibc, in case they can comment. Maybe this behavior changed > at some point in the past? I don't know. Maybe in the LinuxThreads implementation. I think NPTL has handled this correctly from the beginning. POSIX bans the EINTR failure condition. Thanks, Florian