61–70 of 82 posts
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().
Couldn't this entire class of bug be solved by annotating signal handlers in the source code and checking at compile time that anything called from a signal handler is async-signal-safe?
Static analysis tools would go a long way here, yes, and it should be a relatively straightforward analysis. You probably don't even need to explicitly annotate signal handlers, just examine arguments to calls to signal() and sigaction().