This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Fix BZ 23187 -- stack overflow for many Phdr[]s
* Adhemerval Zanella:
> At least for this specific usage where only there is only DYARRAY_resize
> operation it works (no regression on glibc testcase), although I am not
> sure it is the best way to accomplish it. How hard would adapt dl-minimal.c
> malloc to work with dynarray?
DJ posted a patch:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/21325/
We have some disagreement regarding chunk coalescing, but this alone
probably should not block acceptance of the patch.
My original use case evaporated when I realized that we can't use the
dl-minimal malloc during relocation, at least not under the
malloc/free names because relocation itself changes which functions
are called.
>> Should we use a scratch buffer? Which has constant size and can be expanded
>> only if required?
>
> The advantage of dynarray is it provides a slight better typed api with
> ties better a list/array abstraction, but for this usage I think a
> scratch_buffer is doable.
Actually, I want to get rid of that part of the scratch buffer
interface (the array handling part and scratch_buffer_set_array_size).
It's redundant with dynarray. I think I posted a couple of cleanups
which remove the last remaining use.