Issue #19473 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
Yes, for example gems like webservers like Puma set trap handlers.
The trap handler code that has already been written and published probably does not use `Mutex#lock`, so it is not related to this problem. Such benign trap handlers do not require invoking a new thread. In terms of using `Timeout.timeout` in a trap handler, I don't think it is a good idea to run in a trap handler time-consuming code that requires `Timeout.timeout`, because the trap handler may be executed with the main thread suspended in a strange state. ---------------------------------------- Bug #19473: can't be called from trap context (ThreadError) is too limiting https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19473#change-113975 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * 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/