This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: What *is* the API for sched_getaffinity? Should sched_getaffinity always succeed when using cpu_set_t?
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:28:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: What *is* the API for sched_getaffinity? Should sched_getaffinity always succeed when using cpu_set_t?
- References: <51E42BFE dot 7000301 at redhat dot com> <51E43D95 dot 8050509 at suse dot com> <20130716003304 dot GM29800 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On 07/16/2013 02:33 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:21:09PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
There's another solution: Increasing __CPU_SETSIZE to a larger value.
This is what a previous SUSE maintainer did for our glibc (changing to
4096). Unfortunately that issue seems to not have been discussed here;(
That does not fix the problem, it just changes the point at which the
problem occurs. It also breaks the ABI badly, in ways that would be
dangerous buffer overflows if you didn't use a new symbol version (and
even then, the danger remains for certain usages).
It changes it for practical purposes - but I agree, it needs to be done
properly and I don't agree with our patch as it is,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126