[PATCH] malloc: add locking to thread cache
Jörn Engel
joern@purestorage.com
Tue Jan 26 17:41:00 GMT 2016
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:44:57PM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 26/01/16 00:25, Joern Engel wrote:
> > With signals we can reenter the thread-cache. Protect against that with
> > a lock. Will almost never happen in practice, it took the company five
> > years to reproduce a similar race in the existing malloc. But easy to
> > trigger with a targeted test.
>
> why do you try to make malloc as-safe?
Why would I not? I find it easier to make malloc signal-safe than to
find an alternative fix for the signal handler of a single application.
If nothing else, the cost of entering the signal handler a million times
is much lower for a malloc stresstest than an application.
> isn't it better to fix malloc usage in signal handlers?
If your goal is portability across many different malloc libraries, I
would agree. If your goal is to fix deadlocks in applications, changing
malloc is a more economical use of your time.
Jörn
--
Functionality is an asset, but code is a liability.
--Ted Dziuba
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list