Re: SIGPROF + SIGCHLD and igc

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:53:49 -0500
> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> CC: eller.helmut@gmail.com, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es,
>  acorallo@gnu.org
> 
> >I think you are over-complicating things because you are looking for a
> >110% waterproof solution that would work for arbitrary code in the
> >handler.  But we don't need such perfection, as the existing practices
> >show.
> >
> 
> The code there TODAY might not need to be "waterproof", but someone might add logic one day that violates the unstated simplifying assumptions on which you're relying. In this case, we'll end up with subtle and hard to diagnose race conditions. Better to make the mechanism robust from the start. Trying to take shortcuts with POSIX signals is penny wise and pound foolish.

I agree with the ideal, but if it makes things too complicated, then I
prefer simpler solutions together with vigilance to prevent dangerous
code from entering our codebase.  Experience shows that we are quite
capable of doing that, since we've been doing that for many years.

Excessive complications in the design and implementation also come
with risks, as we all know.  I'd rather we avoided too many extra
threads, cross-locking, re-signaling, and other such stuff if we can.