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: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes?

On Dec 31, 2014, "Carlos O'Donell" <> wrote:

> The reason I want to use this definition is to more formally describe
> those functions which are safe to call from a user provided malloc.
> A user provided malloc can be called from almost anywhere in glibc, it
> interrupts core glibc code, it only synchronously interrupts core
> glibc code (when malloc is called), and limiting a user provided malloc
> to AS-safe functions would be punative (though that is what we'll be
> doing in the initial documentation pass).

Hmm...  Given that making malloc AS-Safe is reuqired POSIX compliance,
what would we gain by enabling malloc implementations to call functions
beyond other AS-Safe functions?  I mean, a malloc implementation cannot
be AS-Safe if it calls AS-Unsafe functions, nor can it be MT-Safe if it
calls MT-Unsafe functions, even if they are Reentrant under the
definition you provided, so...  Wouldn't enabling malloc to call them
making sure we won't ever be able to make malloc AS-Safe, and thus

> Hopefully that clarifies the definition of reentrancy.

Yes, thanks for all the effort into clarifying what you meant, even
though just the definition would have been enough.

Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! --   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

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