From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714F01FEAA for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751682AbcFXVcs (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:32:48 -0400 Received: from bsmtp3.bon.at ([213.33.87.17]:47009 "EHLO bsmtp3.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751609AbcFXVcq (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:32:46 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp3.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3rbs4X1qq5z5tlL; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:32:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id A424629B1; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:32:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tests: factor portable signal check out of t0005 To: Jeff King References: <20160624193924.GA6282@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160624194357.GA6441@sigill.intra.peff.net> <576D9D90.3070605@kdbg.org> <20160624210541.GC6282@sigill.intra.peff.net> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=c3=a9_Scharfe?= , "Robin H. Johnson" From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <576DA6FB.1050108@kdbg.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:32:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160624210541.GC6282@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 24.06.2016 um 23:05 schrieb Jeff King: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:52:32PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> The Windows behavior is most closely described as having signal(SIGPIPE, >> SIG_IGN) at the very beginning of the program. > > Right, but then we would get EPIPE. So what does git do in such cases? > I'd expect it generally to either hit the check_pipe() part of > write_or_die(), or to end up complaining via die() that the write didn't > go as expected. Ah, I have forgotten about this code path. Looks like it will trigger exactly the same raise() as test_sigchain. Then the check for exit code 3 makes a bit more sense. But I'm sure we have code paths that do not go through checK_pipe(). Those would proceed through whatever error handling we have and most likely die(). >> IMO there is too much danger to trigger a false positive if exit code 3 is >> treated special in this generality. > > Yeah, I agree. But what _should_ it do? E.g., what happens to git-daemon > when it is killed via TERM? Frankly, I don't know how bash's 'kill -TERM' and a Windows program interact. I've avoided this topic like the plague so far. -- Hannes