From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 29639 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2020 10:40:36 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 8 Jul 2020 10:40:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 29782 invoked by uid 550); 8 Jul 2020 10:40:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 29764 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2020 10:40:32 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594204821; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6C7w2pn6XX5nCkKGzV+nVWGqZTGNE8cbeP9cJQzuo+E=; b=E0AgVjnuG7zAibV+++CvwUc/X+o5qs8Ws49ndJPIGqLGhKHxSnWhW+d1GFFfLCOKEQMgQ/ qRC6V5Z+UIwuVBBt19By9Komb+XGwt6jkibqBTLZLywp0iXmbkYVTRx08qY4TQFRVG+yZl dzidlTzXB+JqFaqOpu61Uh4HN5Bi6VI= X-MC-Unique: 9QowFE-4NoCFV8Q4xRxpQQ-1 From: Florian Weimer To: Alexander Scherbatiy Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com References: Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 12:40:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Alexander Scherbatiy's message of "Wed, 8 Jul 2020 11:59:16 +0300") Message-ID: <871rlmuw6o.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [musl] pthread_getspecific(3) with negative key * Alexander Scherbatiy: > The pthread_getspecific(3) specification describes: > =C2=A0 "The pthread_getspecific() function shall return the thread-specif= ic > data value associated with the given key. If no thread-specific data > value is associated with key, then the value NULL shall be returned. " POSIX says this: | The effect of calling pthread_getspecific() or pthread_setspecific() | with a key value not obtained from pthread_key_create() or after key | has been deleted with pthread_key_delete() is undefined. So no check for a valid key is required. Thanks, Florian