Recent 4.1 breakage...

[Paolo Carlini]

Loren James Rittle wrote:

>>Frankly, that seems to me a QoI issue: seems very annoying that if 
>>random processes using semaphores start failing for some reason, then 
>>sempahore are not available anymore for the *whole* system...
>>    
>>
>Well, the test works the same way on a random version of Red Hat
>thus glibc appers to work the same...
>  
>
I see ;) Maybe there is a rationale for that, security?!?... I would 
appreciate if someone could educate me about that...

>I think all tests using SysV IPC need to be stuctured so that
>the main process starts N children to conduct the test.  The main
>process is written so that abort is never called and it may
>always cleanup the semaphore.  Appears to affect only a small set
>of tests.
>  
>
Agreed. Actually, I wanted to post something very similar. If you want, 
please file a PR about that, so we don't forget.

>PPS, >Anyway, remains to explain why 26777 is failing in the first place on 
>  
>
>>FreeBSD. Without hints I have no idea, sorry.
>>    
>>
>Agreed, I will work on that now that we know why I saw semaphore
>usage failure. ;-)
>  
>
Ok, thanks.

Paolo.