This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? -- No. (Roland was right).

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 01:36:48PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 02:56 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >After serious review it seems like we will need to start by
> >saying that an interposed malloc must operate as-if it were
> >in async-signal context and use only those functions which
> >are marked as async-signal-safe.
> Practically speaking, this seems rather restrictive.  Most mallocs
> need locking, and implementations may want to use pthread mutexes.
> Those are not async-signal-safe, and I doubt they can be made
> reentrant, either.
No, making them reentrant is relatively simple as I wrote before, just
wrap calls in something

static __thread int recursed
if (recursed)
  return allocate_by_mmap();

When freeing/reallocing simplest way is leak memory or put it into
atomic list. Also for performance you need to place recursed field into
already existing allocator per-thread structure.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]