Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:15:25 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Dominic Chen <d.c.ddcc@...il.com> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com, fweimer@...hat.com Subject: Re: Incorrect thread TID caching On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:22:18PM -0500, Dominic Chen wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > As Rich said for musl, this is not ABI for glibc either. > > > > I'm not sure why you need to reset the TID cache. In glibc we have > > containerized tests and we do not need to change internals of the > > runtime e.g. unshare (CLONE_NEWUSER, CLONE_NEWPID, CLONE_NEWNS); > > (see glibc/support/test-container.c). > > > Thanks for the advice; sounds like I should just modify my local > musl to call gettid directly in raise(). No, as noted earlier in this thread we should fix clone() to be like _Fork() at least in the case where it's not doing things that are inherently unsafe (CLONE_VM etc.) -- as long as you're making a new process with normal process semantics, the child should be able to safely call any AS-safe function in libc, or any function in libc at all if the parent is not multi-threaded. The possibility of changing raise() is just for the sake of vfork() and is independent of the issue here. 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.