Re: Reauthentication implementation flaw due to EINTR

[Samuel Thibault]

Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Wed 30 Dec 2009 12:40:02 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:46:09PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Tue 29 Dec 2009 23:40:21 +0100, a écrit :
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:10:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > That's the same.  To make it clearer, see attached patch.
> > > 
> > > I meant in the other branch of the if (though for some reason I didn't
> > > consider the server part's if).
> > 
> > Err, what for?  In that case, dead name notification isn't
> > requested, is it?  Or is it always requested by default and
> > ports_interrupt_self_on_port_death() is just to change the behavior?
> > (I'm a complete newbie for such parts of the Hurd...)
> 
> Nothing magical is happening.

I don't mean magical, but automatic.

> The notification has been requested by
> auth_server_authenticate which is waiting for auth_user_authenticate
> to arive.

Only when the user isn't arrived already.

> In the then part of the if statement, the user has found that the
> server is waiting for the condition to be signaled, which is right
> time to cancel the notification.

Err, isn't the notification bound to an RPC?
(really, I don't know anything about these and the Mach documentation
doesn't help me so much).

Samuel