3 ms·
> pthread cancellation was a terrible idea when it was added, and it's even worse today > you can implement it yourself via signals It appears, that you are c
by yc12340 7y ago
> pthread cancellation was a terrible idea when it was added, and it's even worse today
> you can implement it yourself via signals
It appears, that you are contradicting yourself. Either it is "bad idea" or it is easy to correctly implement by oneself, not both.
musl has well though-out implementation of pthread cancellation, so it is clearly doable, even if glibc developers have failed at it.
- murderfs 7y agoThe problem with pthread cancellation is that it is fundamentally broken when used on a thread that can ever acquire resources (opening an fd, taking a mutex, mallocing a buffer, etc.). If it were just "call pthread_testcancel to figure out if you were cancelled", that would be fine, but no, you either get blown up immediately, or you get blown up at arbitrary function call boundaries (that don't really make any sense; e.g. why is strerror_r allowed to be a cancellation point?) It's easy to correctly implement the parts that aren't just adding a call to pthread_testcancel to every single syscall wrapper, just reserve an RT signal and do your thread teardown when you receive it, using pthread_sigmask to implement enable/disable. It's just that it's just a terrible idea.
- dfox 7y agostrerror[_r]() is allowed to be cancellation point, because it's implementation may involve calls to read() which is required to be cancellation point.