On 05/17/2016 08:57 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
* nptl/tst-cancel17.c (do_test): Wait for finishing aio_read(&a).
Nice analysis. Looks good to me.
diff --git a/nptl/tst-cancel17.c b/nptl/tst-cancel17.c
index fb89292..9ff4e27 100644
--- a/nptl/tst-cancel17.c
+++ b/nptl/tst-cancel17.c
@@ -333,6 +333,22 @@ do_test (void)
puts ("early cancellation succeeded");
+ if (ap == &a2)
+ {
+ /* The aio_read(&a) was not canceled, because the read request was
+ already in progress. In the meanwhile aio_write(ap) wrote something
+ to the pipe and the read request either has already been
finished or
+ is able to read the requested byte.
+ Wait for the read request before returning from this function,
because
+ the return value and error code from the read syscall will be
written
+ to the struct aiocb a, which lays on the stack of this function.
+ Otherwise the stack from subsequent function calls - e.g.
_dl_fini -
+ will be corrupted, which can lead to undefined behaviour like a
+ segmentation fault. */
I think it should be âwhich *lies* on the stackâ (the intransitive
variant), and a comma before âbecauseâ is frowned upon in some circles.
Thanks,
Florian