Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:48:34 +0200
I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in
libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where this code
works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on freebsd-hackers).
Look, that code assumes that blocking async signals would stop thread
scheduler from doing preemption of the current thread. This works
for libc_r, but fails in libpthread and libthr cases. libpthread provides
implementation of the locks for rtld. But libthr does not !
As result, rtld exhibit races when used with libthr. In other words,
libthr needs code to do proper locking.
Do you agree ? Does somebody already planned to do this work ?
Best regards,
Kostik Belousov
Attachment:
pgp9lql298eyd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Alexander Kabaev
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- From: David Xu
- Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- References:
- dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kazuaki Oda
- [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- From: Kostik Belousov
- dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- Prev by Date: RE: Intel 6300ESB SATA and TIMEOUT - WRITE_DMA
- Next by Date: copy paste in freebsd
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe?
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
