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=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 11518 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2023 19:43:10 -0000 Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Jul 2023 19:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 7211 invoked by uid 550); 11 Jul 2023 19:43:07 -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 6142 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2023 19:43:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=s31663417; t=1689104574; x=1689709374; i=nullplan@gmx.net; bh=SFJz9C2nJXwS8qsCCmv866Tin5NLxPnRtkg3IzgiGmQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=c7uRkp8Q/lTrBO450fxAZYJLqbD2b+oUn9aFvHW4kJznpIx/0psyh5h7SLYtC7CR3OuBo3S MhLFOROXfxqf7nsVsCewDXp71PEMnD9eh/VXhy1JgP1RHXw5JyDRTWpzvvtyx2RA5EDnhqScd Rb4G8uwfjliRBYKvk+o4VOf6/QGOjfSUgHWC6p+In878eankP8Z2ozPaUhrcV/6VEUL29rPZl qGgoOu5WFozmo7H3BR5BBcbhBT7ptTEQD/83C6MsMHNDlQF2qrR5kBmJ1mw/PGnaMatg1uIYV UlrUlChB581VIFQ6HrlaZdEbiIkx4Juwt+S0Nsr7UirvZyfWGjhQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 21:42:54 +0200 From: Markus Wichmann To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:qgn7cSX6lAkMp+hiLcjfuYbBAHGq597sLecWbkfS0ZL+RaTG5uD 7+MZxgFYONm5nYt4QJhkYcsTBo2ikcqxkFaH/LtnBTSpWMx4/iQ9UgihikzSs0UMK1tD+dF 1UczupxMSc0/DWB6ji/W3WDbtaDGK7keWvGi+rUdc3JKATeuALmzu/zqEZ3P9Ar9MVQxuoh QxqDnzkwzAWceCs9rVwag== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:ehxHs6jC+Us=;xcMysM/OeGtJbujThPpaQMworFn zZolEbhWB+C02WJFphWD7Fc17eu17onIS1n/eyf98G/d69E9e0DjDmqCkOf2t7zMOj8WePJ16 0gNFQLOj2JyWt1Gukn4V7TWH85hHY2ax2H5cSXS763myE4V3kLLu8LB3fWRj99Pv3Q/i+kVjE ifqL8WSskl2gCp8UCi+/2I+75X8TM6QkgA/585vmbDFtHnNwHa0uPbUQNXIVelRWM8wUhiunq VbuwgwfwKueg5+Cyl0KRkC4Jo1MVxzI8m2/Ga198I+Llk8eomEzZUTKmmBxa8KtEZXTbcv8IZ YULJkWSTAH5Fq06Mw21aAvxRlGcGuiae1DG13crDAW3N0LeFMEzSbaqFhQJpJRAWZ9wPA9vjk /3YaUpXS8xDfBi8H6nkFKISkpJzkOCB7SxcJmY4XQe3bcmm6MspSa49yf1IyNyyO5yLy50+CJ 7z9xL5KBCUZ+DZJoj5fFxJ+6VPcTjpD/KvFfvt/pAqi/FG58+2wctWeyZJXw9+oRv/EXkhjP5 3hZx1tfqGbsTnaM8GEe02uf8kisZpa7VRquQ8lMSwAojPphoiu7LDr5Py3YokmD4ur5RchDtJ O88FvGN9ItY9nV6mRVEQii+Z1FTljts/gJn77vXc7/F91mKWaNLq3khuHj6H/NItF0Wh8OABN V7rVQQk4hkKc4jgz4D6mBCTxYOIeIrGGu8nglo0mo9dO+Zo6jcQBV+GZNihQ9YwL1Ea1MP/D3 hDuNL2+Fm8njmww+VIIbBnQY2KLNBInWKrlscD2WRBzpwkJnER4j/UmQlr6ubQoJgbS3V0Nt5 cEKpyn/f5+0t5X3ZohckV8K9vColAwydpaYVR4MVSOfkXlraAlmH+yAbh+zCoSpxTCLAp2Vgt ILovjDwZiTrTsd8WuJtAcEmFUYEUju6ASQPsbmMUqqMZFFpTft/j2RAysZyxTd43vf/4+i/lK OGB+QQ== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [musl] Difference in pthread behavior between glibc and musl Am Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:19:50PM +0000 schrieb Appelmans, Madeleine: > Hello, > > There seems to be a difference in pthread behavior when compiling with > glibc and using the musl-gcc wrapper. The attached snippet of code > creates a destructor attribute which deletes a pthread key. The code > never actually creates the pthread key. This code segfaults when > compiled using musl-gcc, and does not segfault when compiled with gcc. > Undefined behavior is undefined. And it is undefined behavior to be calling pthread_key_delete() with a key that was not previously acquired from pthread_key_create(). POSIX encourages - but does not require - implementations to detect invalid keys and return an error then. And musl doesn't. Ciao, Markus