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: [PATCHv3] Protect _dl_profile_fixup data-dependency order [BZ #23690]

* Carlos O'Donell:

> (3) Fence-to-fence sync.
> For fence-to-fence synchronization to work we need an acquire and release
> fence, and we have that.
> We are missing the atomic read and write of the guard. Please review below.
> Florian mentioned this in his review. He is correct.
> And all the problems are back again because you can't do atomic loads of
> the large guards because they are actually the function descriptor structures.
> However, this is just laziness, we used the addr because it was convenient.
> It is no longer convenient. Just add a 'init' field to reloc_result and use
> that as the guard to synchronize the threads against for initialization of
> the results. This should solve the reloc_result problem (ignorning the issues
> hppa and ia64 have with the fdesc updates across multiple threads in _dl_fixup).

I think due to various external factors, we should go with the
fence-based solution for now, and change it later to something which
uses an acquire/release on the code address later, using proper atomics.

I don't want to see this bug fix blocked by ia64 and hppa.  The proper
fix needs some reshuffling of the macros here, or maybe use an unused
bit in the flags field as an indicator for initialization.

> (4) Review of elf_machine_fixup_plt, and DL_FIXUP_MAKE_VALUE.	
> I reviewed the uses of elf_machine_fixup_plt, and DL_FIXUP_MAKE_VALUE to
> see if there was any other case of this problem, particularly where there
> might be a case where a write happens on one thread that might not be
> seen in another.
> I also looked at _dl_relocate_object and the initialization of all 
> l_reloc_result via calloc, and that is also covered because the
> atomic_thread_fence_acquire ensures any secondary thread sees the
> initialization.

I don't think the analysis is correct.  It's up to the application to
ensure that the dlopen (or at least the call to an ELF constructor in
the new DSO) happens before a call to any function in the DSO, and this
is why there is no need to synchronize the calloc with the profiling


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