On Wednesday 27 November 2013 02:46, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:01:36PM +0200, Daniel Borca wrote:
> > +#ifndef HAVE_SIGISEMPTYSET
> > +int sigisemptyset(sigset_t *set)
> > +{
> > + sigset_t empty;
> > + int ret = sigemptyset(&empty);
> > + if (ret == 0) {
> > + ret = !memcmp(&empty, set, sizeof(sigset_t));
> > + }
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> This is not a suitable fallback implementation. It's not needed on
> musl (we provide sigisemptyset), but if this version were used, it
> would give the wrong results, because musl's sigemptyset only fills
> the first _NSIG-1 bits and ignores the remaining ~900 bits of junk in
> sigset_t.
>
> A valid fallback for sigisemptyset would be something like:
>
> int empty = 1, i;
> for (i=1; i<_NSIG; i++) {
> if (sigismember(set, i)>0) {
> empty = 0;
> break;
> }
> }
My eyes! 8(
> If _NSIG is unknown (not defined), sizeof(sigset_t)*8+1 could work in
> its place, assuming signals are numbered sequentially.
>
> Note that in the case of an invalid signal number, sigismember should
> return either 0 (not a member) or -1 (with errno set); the above code
> I suggested handles this case (for example, if you try signal numbers
> greater than _NSIG that are not actually reflected in the sigset_t).
I would say it's better to open-code a conditional replacement everywhere
sigisemptyset is used (total of two callsites): usually, the caller expects
not-braindead looping implementation.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
