Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:00:17 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> Subject: Re: nss_ldap broken Message-ID: <20040331160017.GH13810@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403301119430.11221-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20040330141631.GH10949@lum.celabo.org> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10403301119430.11221-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:25:01AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:37:44AM -0800, Sean McNeil wrote: > > > I'm still concerned that nss_atexit can cause a seg11 if a nss_*.so.1 > > > starts up any threads when the program isn't threaded otherwise. Don't > > > really know why an nss plugin would want to do that, but it is > > > hazardous. > > It shouldn't be doing that. Why do I get the sinking feeling that we'll need to have nsswitch pull in e.g. nss_foo.so.1 if (!__isthreaded) and nss_foo_r.so.1 otherwise? > > The locks may not be needed regardless. Dan, how do threads interact > > with atexit()? Are threads serialized at that point? Does the main > > thread call all the atexit handlers? > > exit() calls the finalization of atexit() to run down the exit > handlers. The threads library has nothing to do with it, > but the atexit() stuff is protected with mutexes (see > src/lib/libc/stdlib/atexit.c). So whichever thread calls exit() will call all of the registered atexit handlers? So why are the mutexes needed? You are referring to __cxa_finalize, correct? It appears to me that in any case, the atexit_mutex is not held while calling the actual handler. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / nectar@celabo.org / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040331160017.GH13810>