[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 02:04:30 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Reviving planned ldso changes
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2017-01-15 12:44:38 -0500]:
> static void do_init_fini(struct dso *p)
> {
> size_t dyn[DYN_CNT];
> - int need_locking = libc.threads_minus_1;
> - /* Allow recursive calls that arise when a library calls
> - * dlopen from one of its constructors, but block any
> - * other threads until all ctors have finished. */
> - if (need_locking) pthread_mutex_lock(&init_fini_lock);
> - for (; p; p=p->prev) {
> - if (p->constructed) continue;
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&init_fini_lock);
> + /* Construct in dependency order without any recursive state. */
> + while (p && !p->constructed) {
> + /* The following loop descends into the first dependency
> + * that is neither alredy constructed nor pending
> + * construction due to circular deps, stopping only
> + * when it reaches a dso with no remaining dependencies
> + * to descend into. */
> + while (p->deps && p->deps[p->next_dep]) {
> + if (!p->deps[p->next_dep]->constructed &&
> + !p->deps[p->next_dep]->next_dep)
> + p = p->deps[p->next_dep++];
> + else
> + p->next_dep++;
> + }
> p->constructed = 1;
> decode_vec(p->dynv, dyn, DYN_CNT);
> if (dyn[0] & ((1<<DT_FINI) | (1<<DT_FINI_ARRAY))) {
> @@ -1233,17 +1246,19 @@ static void do_init_fini(struct dso *p)
> size_t *fn = laddr(p, dyn[DT_INIT_ARRAY]);
> while (n--) ((void (*)(void))*fn++)();
> }
> - if (!need_locking && libc.threads_minus_1) {
> - need_locking = 1;
> - pthread_mutex_lock(&init_fini_lock);
> - }
> - }
> - if (need_locking) pthread_mutex_unlock(&init_fini_lock);
> + /* Revisit "parent" dso which caused the just-constructed
> + * dso to be pulled in as a dependency. On the next loop
> + * iteration we will either descend to construct a sibling
> + * of the just-constructed dso, or finish constructing the
> + * parent if no unfinished deps remain. */
> + p = p->needed_by;
> + }
i think with
a.deps: b c
b.deps: c d
b.needed_by: a
c.needed_by: a
the visiting order starting from a is
a
b
c
a
and d never gets constructed.
i was looking for the dfs stack (how you track back
on the path you descended into the dependency tree),
the needed_by entry might not point to the parent
dso through which you arrived somewhere.
i'm not sure what the right fix is, if needed_by
is not used elsewhere then it could be set during
traversal, but there might be other ways.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
