[PATCH] Avoid deadlock in malloc on backtrace
Carlos O'Donell
carlos@redhat.com
Thu Mar 5 19:22:00 GMT 2015
On 03/02/2015 12:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> to be clear, while i support adding an optional "paranoid" mode, i'm entirely
> against disabling them by default. these crash messages have improved the lives
> of users and developers significantly since they were added. i don't have data
> to back this claim up, but having worked as a developer writing my own code,
> an upstream developer releasing my own packages, and a distro maintainer on a
> wide swath of packages, all continuously since the glibc 2.2.5 days, i think my
> anecdotal memory is sufficient. as a maintainer of the toolchain, i certainly
> know it helps bucket bugs -- before this message, most random crashes were
> thrown at the toolchain distro maintainers (after all, a crash in malloc must
> surely be the fault of the C library). now with all the memory corruption
> hooks, we've got a pretty strong/reliable signal that it is entirely the fault
> of the package. returning to that status quo would be a terrible idea.
>
> if a distro has frameworks in place to replace the functionality of these (e.g.
> a core dump handler), then they can make the decision to also opt in their C
> library to this mode. on Gentoo, we make the decision based on how hardened the
> user wants their system.
That's a very cogent argument for keeping the status-quo behaviour and fixing
the deadlock, while continuing the discussion over what exactly should be done.
Cheers,
Carlos.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list