Issue #19473 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote in #note-7:
Yes. There was a discussion to introduce a thread for signal handlers. But it was not introduced maybe because it is too much for many cases.
I think this is ultimately the proper solution to this problem. It's extremely hard to reason about a signal handler running on top of any line of code of the main thread.
akr had proposed that if someone want to use such case, how about to make a thread in a trap handler for workaround. I think it is reasonable.
I cannot really use that here, or I would need an efficient way to know I'm in a trap handler (I suppose I could catch the `can't be called from trap context (ThreadError)` but that's really ugly and likely quite slow). Because Timeout doesn't define the trap handler, the user does. And asking every user to workaround like that doesn't seem good, that actually creates more threads than a single signal-handling thread created by Ruby. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19473: can't be called from trap context (ThreadError) is too limiting https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19473#change-102362 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Simple reproducer: ``` $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] -e:1:in `synchronize': can't be called from trap context (ThreadError) from -e:1:in `block in <main>' from -e:1:in `kill' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` Expected behavior: ``` $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' truffleruby 22.3.1, like ruby 3.0.3, GraalVM CE Native [x86_64-linux] :OK $ ruby -ve 'm=Mutex.new; trap(:HUP) { m.synchronize { p :OK } }; Process.kill :HUP, Process.pid; sleep 0.1' jruby 9.4.0.0 (3.1.0) 2022-11-23 95c0ec159f OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 17.0.6+10 on 17.0.6+10 +jit [x86_64-linux] :OK ``` This exception is highly problematic, for instance it breaks `Timeout.timeout` in `trap`: https://github.com/ruby/timeout/issues/17#issuecomment-1142035939 I suppose this behavior is because *sometimes* it's problematic to lock a Mutex in trap, e.g., if it's already locked by the main thread/fiber. But that would otherwise already raise `deadlock; recursive locking (ThreadError)`, so there is no point to fail early. And that's just one case, not all, so we should not always raise an exception. There seems to be no valid reason to prevent *all* `Mutex#synchronize` in `trap`. After all, if the Mutex for instance is only used in `trap`, it's well-defined AFAIK. For instance a given trap handler does not seem executed concurrently: ``` $ ruby -ve 'trap(:HUP) { puts "in trap\n"+caller.join("\n")+"\n\n"; sleep 0.1 }; pid = Process.pid; Process.wait fork { 20.times { Process.kill :HUP, pid } }; sleep 1' ruby 3.2.1 (2023-02-08 revision 31819e82c8) [x86_64-linux] in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' in trap -e:1:in `wait' -e:1:in `<main>' ``` And if the trap handler using the Mutex is never called while the Mutex is held by the main thread/fiber, there is also no problem. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/