Re: [9fans] syscall silently kill processes

[adr <adr@SDF.ORG>]

Oh man... how silly, I know what's going on. We are using processes
not threads, so although we are sharing the same array of handlers,
they are registered for different processes. When the array is full
the next processes fail to register handlers _for_them_ so as andrey
rightly said, the default action (death) is taken when the alarm
note is sent.

The solution is obvious, cancel the process' handlers before it
exits so we don't run out of space.

Now, is there any reason to not do that in threadexits() when it
terminates the process?

Shouldn't threadnotify() cancel only the process' handlers? We are
sharing onnote[NFN] and the code as it is right now removes the
first handler that match the pointer, it can belong to another
process.

Something like this?:

int
threadnotify(int (*f)(void*, char*), int in)
{
        int i, topid;
        int (*from)(void*, char*), (*to)(void*, char*);

        if(in){
                from = nil;
                frompid = 0;
                to = f;
                topid = _threadgetproc()->pid;
        }else{
                from = f;
                frompid = _threadgetproc()->pid;
                to = nil;
                topid = 0;
        }
        lock(&onnotelock);
        for(i=0; i<NFN; i++)
                if(onnote[i]==from && onnotepid[i]==frompid){
                        onnote[i] = to;
                        onnotepid[i] = topid;
                        break;
                }
        unlock(&onnotelock);
        return i<NFN;
}

Any thoughts?

adr.

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tfa6823048ad90a21-M45b18058b8188bfcc376c11c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription