Should we raise an issue in Go upstream repository since there is nothing actionable from musl side? El vie., 5 oct. 2018 2:47, Rich Felker escribió: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:53:02AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Rabbitstack wrote: > > > Please use the following link to download strace since daemon is > refusing > > > to deliver the mail. > > > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/syhbzxvijf7s4v1/agent.strace?dl=0 > > > > Here is the bug: > > > > 6208 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, ~[HUP INT QUIT ILL TRAP ABRT BUS FPE > SEGV TERM STKFLT CHLD PROF SYS RTMIN RT_1], > > > > Apparently Go has its own version of sigfillset, rather than calling > > the libc one, and it's hard-coded the glibc values for which signals > > are reserved for the implementation (just RTMIN and RT_1) rather than > > honoring SIGRTMIN (which resolves at runtime via a function call), > > which would exempt RT_2 from being blocked too. > > > > It needs to be fixed on the Go side. I'll look at it later if nobody > > else more familiar with Go gets to it sooner. > > If these are the right source files: > > https://golang.org/src/runtime/os_linux_generic.go#L33 > https://golang.org/src/runtime/sys_linux_amd64.s#L290 > > Then they're not even making any attempt to avoid stomping on > implementation-internal signals, and there's nothing musl could do to > prevent this. This suggests to me that something in your codebase is > explicitly avoiding RTMIN and RT_1 (33 and 34). Making it also avoid > RT_2 (35) would be a short-term hack you could use to get past this > problem, but there's no guarantee assignments won't change in the > future (this is why SIGRTMIN and SIGRTMAX macros expand to functions > calls). Really if a Go program wants to use libc, it needs to avoid > bypassing libc in ways that change the process state (like signal mask > or disposition). > > Rich >