Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:45:51 +0200 From: Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Bug report, concurrency issue on exception with gcc 8.3.0 Hello, thank you very much for the explanation. This gives me a temporary way to fix up our application until the bug has been fixed. Cheers, Max. On 19/09/18 11:21, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com> [2019-09-18 09:19:31 +0200]: > > thanks for the quick response and for lobbying with the gcc folks! > > > > Did you see the second example program in the original bug report? This > > seems to indicate that there might be an additional problem, since when > > I explicitly use `pthread_cancel` (thereby circumventing the detection > > problem), I get a crash when the first exception is thrown. > > pthread_cancel does not solve the detection problem. > > reference to pthread_cancel only helps with dynamic linking. > in case of static linking you have to explicitly add (strong) > reference to symbols that libgcc_eh.a uses: > > pthread_cancel > pthread_getspecific > pthread_key_create > pthread_mutex_lock > pthread_mutex_unlock > pthread_once > pthread_setspecific > > where pthread_cancel is only needed to make libgcc_eh.a call the > thread functions (but those are all weakrefs so will just be 0 > at runtime unless there are other strong references to them). > > > > > Do you think this is a libgcc problem, too? Should I report this to the > > gcc bug tracker as well? > > > > Cheers, > > Max. > > > > On 19/09/17 10:35, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:02:27AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 03:44:22PM +0200, Max Neunhoeffer wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I am experiencing problems when linking a large multithreaded C++ application > > > > > statically against libmusl. I am using Alpine Linux 3.10.1 and gcc 8.3.0 > > > > > on X86_64. That is, I am using libmusl 1.1.22-r3 (Alpine Linux versioning) > > > > > and gcc 8.3.0-r0. > > > > > > > > > > Before going into details, here is an overview: > > > > > > > > > > 1. libgcc does not detect correctly that the application is multithreaded, > > > > > since `pthread_cancel` is not linked into the executable. > > > > > As a consequence, the lazy initialization of data structures for stack > > > > > unwinding (FDE tables) is executed without protection of a mutex. > > > > > Therefore, if the very first exception in the program happens to be > > > > > thrown in two threads concurrently, the data structures can be corrupted, > > > > > resulting in a busy loop after `main()` is finished. > > > > > 2. If I make sure that I explicitly link in `pthread_cancel` this problem > > > > > is (almost certainly) gone, however, in certain scenarios this leads > > > > > to a crash when the first exception is thrown. > > > > > > > > > > I had first reported this problem to gcc as a bug against libgcc, but the > > > > > gcc team denies responsibility, see > > > > > [this bug report](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91737). > > > > > > > > This is a gcc bug and needs to be fixed in libgcc. > > > > > > I've updated the gcc tracker with more info, but I seem to lack the > > > ability to reopen the bug myself. > > > > > > To add some more context, using weak references to determine if a > > > library is linked is a dynamic-linking-centric hack and is not > > > compatible with static linking. GCC has historically done this for > > > glibc and other systems where libpthread was a separate library to > > > avoid pulling in a dependency on it, but it's always been broken on > > > glibc with static linking too. Various distros worked around this with > > > horrible hacks as described in Andrew Pinski's reply to your bug > > > report, using binutils tricks to move the whole libpthread.a into a > > > single .o file so that if any of it gets linked it all gets linked. > > > It's possibly upstream glibc adopted this at some point; I'm not sure. > > > But they're in the process of moving the mutex functions to libc > > > instead of libpthread (and maybe even getting rid of libpthread like > > > musl does), so GCC's hacks here won't even provide any benefit with > > > future glibc versions. > > > > > > In any case, this kind of pushback against fixes for clear bugs used > > > to be expected, but things have gotten a lot better with musl being > > > more mainstream nowadays. I think the issue will get resolved quickly > > > once a few more GCC developers look at it. It was actually just > > > reopened while I was writing this email. > > > > > > Rich
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.