This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [updated patch] malloc per-thread cache ready for review
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, carlos at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:45:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: [updated patch] malloc per-thread cache ready for review
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 2C9F461B9D
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2C9F461B9D
- References: <xnpodpxiv9.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <ffdd9f5e-9e5b-6e68-d152-e8f7e714105b@gotplt.org>
On 06/28/2017 09:28 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2017 02:12 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> Why does this need to be inherited by children of setxid processes? I
>>> guess the fact that the remaining malloc tunables are is one probable
>>> reason, but those also need to be reviewed and brought down to
>>> SXID_ERASE if necessary.
>>
>> IIRC Florian asked for that setting; I don't know specifically what the
>> difference is but if you two want to fight it out, I'll get some popcorn ;-)
>
> haha, interesting, because I remember Florian and I had this discussion
> about the utility of SXID_IGNORE six months ago when I designed the
> scope control for the envvars. Lets have Florian explain this.
I don't recall discussing this. I think we should use SXID_ERASE for
new tunables, and revisit that decision only when necessary.
Thanks,
Florian