[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aDcixM_bFxsww_mB@voyager>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 16:50:44 +0200
From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Deadlock in dynamic linker?
Am Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:26:15PM -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> However I'm beginning to doubt this solution really works. The problem
> is that, if A depends on B, A's ctor can be waiting to run pending B's
> ctor finishing. But if a concurrent exit calls B's dtor, then A's ctor
> is no longer free to run, because it depends on B being constructed.
> We really do need to block execution of any ctor whose deps may
> already have been destructed.
>
> Rich
I am wondering if we are approaching this from the wrong end: Is it
possible to make __libc_exit_fini() wait to call *any* destructors
until all other threads have stopped calling initializers? That way, the
other constructors can continue to run until they reach some valid
state, rather than this in-betweeny one.
I don't really see a nice way to do that, that also allows detecting
multi-threaded fork() and exit() out of a constructor.
Ciao,
Markus
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.
