Skip to content

sigaction should probably be unsafe #90

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
tbu- opened this issue Mar 27, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #101
Closed

sigaction should probably be unsafe #90

tbu- opened this issue Mar 27, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #101

Comments

@tbu-
Copy link
Contributor

tbu- commented Mar 27, 2015

If you access thread-local data in a signal handler or panic, you probably invoke UB.

http://users.rust-lang.org/t/unix-signals-in-rust/733/3
@carllerche
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @wycats

@l0kod
Copy link

l0kod commented Mar 28, 2015

cc Safe async/reentrant closure

@tbu-
Copy link
Contributor Author

tbu- commented Apr 6, 2015

Meh. It's relatively easy to mark the function unsafe. Should I make a pull request?

tbu- added a commit to tbu-/rust-nix that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2015
@tbu-
Make sigaction unsafe
b6be837 
This is done because interrupted execution has soundness bugs regarding
thread-local storage. Fixes nix-rust#90.
@tbu- tbu- mentioned this issue Apr 14, 2015
Merged
tbu- added a commit to tbu-/rust-nix that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2015
@tbu-
Make sigaction unsafe
a9ce14c 
This is done because interrupted execution has soundness bugs regarding
thread-local storage. Fixes nix-rust#90.
@kamalmarhubi kamalmarhubi mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2017
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Make sigaction unsafe tbu-/rust-nix
3 participants
@carllerche @l0kod @tbu-