X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 99D973858283
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1705921628;
	bh=q1DnocBpSokyNI7WJS9PuUlS9QWaHPKX0UvPSMpwFyQ=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=cC8aDnnwgcg5qNzxdRmQALIicyZDWZXtK820MEnJ5U1WxEnTv7miz55qiBczrcQd2
	9irjKxpA4CAiiCgnM2F6QWevsVAM2SWeeO7NxZfWmfHgejGx7GOMSxHlTr46XfWosV
	mINhPv2GXlFTbFaBm7RF9FMFB9A6BhAETncM4lJc=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 2B78E3858D20
ARC-Filter:	OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 2B78E3858D20
ARC-Seal:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705921602; cv=none;
	b=OoLq/aN78JQYkF8dUYXez0MHO8m7rVG9XzADGj+xmEkE82o5Ybb/Jsig/dynIM83xULvK8bsN4Fd195vzDOT8p0Eo6EtOgPwyw8TyV89bFEN0XCG4PHSqlnqzZAuP60biwdGGP1dgT6SwEoxncgLbcdLntiZCeiYhDHcet9klb0=
ARC-Message-Signature:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1705921602; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=9KiCAvm2JYti95+zKYwUwQJ18Fc+k6Xv3/SvgM+tqhk=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version;
	b=FBT83AotMpgXagxZCFuJugDXnbREHLLsmiunjACyKnjrp85jtt3Fsvg1W6SDANSpCq+7R9tXg3VXFtStsYi1zdRrP1leXYgtlBgPo+wJWKM1ngjdpO7RipE5rlzg+grpn71VEfn8U1T4xblVcDG+9PtHUyLj3bOrrMXXddLGtbM=
ARC-Authentication-Results:	i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:06:34 +0900
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll
Message-Id:	<20240122200634.bcb3408c9d4722b9a914afcf@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To:	<Za40iEPcedfBSt5n@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<20240119224436 DOT 876a055f356f7c6796bc725b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<ZaqHGElhXZIc3NFX AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20240120131825 DOT 4157c259fe058155137d6fe0 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<20240120141349 DOT cde31e62177a0405b0ee9934 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<87v87ov03x DOT fsf AT Gerda DOT invalid>
	<20240120212427 DOT 1e69fd3655ece73ecd508def AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<20240121201051 DOT 795a4405576a97ab8729e273 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<87fryqizl3.fsf@>
	<20240122123023 DOT b8eaac0e50d1e8856f44a115 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<Za40iEPcedfBSt5n AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0,
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,
	TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.30
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:25:28 +0100
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 22 12:30, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > PATCH2: (for cygwin)
> > Avoid handle leak caused when non-static pthread_once_t is initialized
> > with PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT
> > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > index 7bb4f9fc8..127569160 100644
> > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> > @@ -2060,6 +2060,9 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void))
> >      {
> >        init_routine ();
> >        once_control->state = 1;
> > +      pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex);
> > +      while (pthread_mutex_destroy (&once_control->mutex) == EBUSY);
> > +      return 0;
> >      }
> >    /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */
> >    pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex);
> 
> I see what you're doing here.  Wouldn't it be simpler, though, to do this?
> 
> diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> index 7bb4f9fc8341..7ec3aace395d 100644
> --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc
> @@ -2063,6 +2063,7 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void))
>      }
>    /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */
>    pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex);
> +  while (pthread_mutex_destroy (&once_control->mutex) == EBUSY);
>    return 0;
>  }

In this code, if several threads call pthread_once() at the same time,
only one thread will succeed pthread_mutex_destroy() and the others
will fail with EINVAL. But it does not matter. The code will be
simpler.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -