[PATCH] Fix problem with file locking used before initialised
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Tue Feb 8 01:35:00 GMT 2005
Patch applied. I noticed a flaw in that __sinit was unlocked so you could
conceivably have two threads that called it in a race condition. I added a lock
for it and added a check once you acquire the lock that __sdidinit wasn't
already set.
Thanks,
-- Jeff J.
Antony KING wrote:
> Please find attached a revised version of the following patch (replacing
> the original submission) which adds some missing #includes of "local.h"
> in files which had CHECK_INIT() calls added.
>
> (I have also attached the patch file as text this time instead of as a
> gzip'd attachment for easier perusal).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antony.
>
> Antony King wrote:
>
>> Please find attached a patch against libc in newlib to fix I a problem
>> I have encountered in the use of the _flockfile/_funlockfile API on
>> the standard I/O streams (stderr, stdout and stdin).
>>
>> The problems stems from the fact that the FILE objects for these I/O
>> streams are initially statically allocated in the global re-entrancy
>> structure (aka the "impure" pointer) and they are not 100% initialised
>> by static initialisation. This is overcome by the use of the
>> CHECK_INIT and _REENT_SMALL_CHECK_INIT macros which complete the
>> initialisation of the standard FILE I/O objects in a re-entrancy
>> structure. As part of the initialisation of the standard I/O FILE
>> objects the file lock objects are initialised.
>>
>> Unfortunately the _flockfile/_funlockfile functions are used before
>> CHECK_INIT is called and therefore the FILE lock object could end up
>> in an unknown state depending on the implementation of the FILE lock
>> object and the method of initialisation. To solve this problem it is
>> necessary to call CHECK_INIT before _flockfile/_funlockfile are called
>> in any function that takes a FILE * object as an argument (which
>> normally is a user level function). The attached patch attempts to fix
>> this problem.
>>
>> Note that I have modified some machine specific files unfortunately I
>> am unable to test so you may not wish to commit these changes (powerpc
>> and arm files).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antony.
More information about the Newlib
mailing list