Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:54:34 +0900 From: Kazuaki Oda <kaakun@highway.ne.jp> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr Message-ID: <4423DDFA.3090504@highway.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20060324084834.GE27116@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <44215FE9.2070602@highway.ne.jp> <20060322174312.GB27116@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20060322190725.GC27116@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4421BA34.8040908@highway.ne.jp> <20060323105440.GD27116@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20060324084834.GE27116@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik Belousov wrote: > 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 I'm a bit confused. Do you mean the following? * The current implementation of rtld has a problem both with libpthread and libthr. It works only with libc_r. * In libpthread case, the problem goes away if we modify rtld code. * In libthr case, in addition to above, we must modify libthr code to provide implementation of the locks for rtld. right? -- Kazuaki Oda
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4423DDFA.3090504>