This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org 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] |
On 19.05.19 18:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nat!:So my problem is, that I observe that my atexit calls are not executed in the correct order. i.e. atexit( a); atexit( b); should result in b(), a() being called in that order. To quote the man page, "the registered functions are invoked in reverse order". When I register with `atexit` I can see my functions being added properly within `__internal_atexit` in the correct order. Finally after my functions, the elf-loader ? also adds itself there. So it is being called first by `__run_exit_handlers`. Then comes the part where it goes wrong. I registered my two function with `__internal_atexit`, but for some reason `_dl_fini` is calling `__cxa_finalize` and that is calling the wrong function first.When atexit is called from a DSO, glibc calls the registered function before the DSO is unloaded. This choice was made because after unloading, the function pointer becomes invalid. I haven't checked, but I suspect atexit still works this way even if it doesn't have to (because the DSO is never unloaded).
I understand, but the behavior is wrong :) The C standard (or the C++ standard for this matter) http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstdlib/atexit/ states that
```If more than one atexit function has been specified by different calls to this function, they are all executed in reverse order as a stack (i.e. the last function specified is the first to be executed at exit).
```I think its been shown that glibc can violate this C standard, so for me the argument would be over here already. That one should unwind in the reverse order is, I assume, not a interesting discussion topic. Currently atexit as a reliable mechanism is broken.
But I also don't think the way this is currently handled in glibc, can't be of much use to anyone.
Case 1: a regular exe linked with shared libraries, nothing gets unloaded at exit, so what's the point ?
Case 2: someone manually unloads a shared library, that contains atexit code. The bug is either using `atexit` for a shared library that gets unloaded, or unloading a shared library that contains atexit code. But it's not really glibcs business IMO.
Case 3: some automatism unloads shared libraries. Then the automatism should check if atexit code is affected and not unload, because the shared library is still clearly needed. It's a bug in the automatism.
If one was hellbent on trying to support atexit for unloading shared libraries, an atexit contained in a shared library should up the reference count of the shared library during the atexit call and decrement after the callback has executed.
Ciao Nat!
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |