Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread Kostik Belousov
I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where this code works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on freebsd-hackers). Look, that code assumes that blocking async signals would stop thread scheduler from doin

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread David Xu
在 Friday 24 March 2006 16:48，Kostik Belousov 写道： > I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in > libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where this code > works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on freebsd-hackers). > > Look, that code assumes that b

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread Kazuaki Oda
Kostik Belousov wrote: > I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in > libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where this code > works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on freebsd-hackers). > > Look, that code assumes that blocking async signals woul

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread joerg
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:54:34PM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote: > * The current implementation of rtld has a problem both with > libpthread and libthr. It works only with libc_r. It doesn't work correctly with libc_r. Concurrent dlopen and dlclose of the same shared object doesn't work fully corre

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:54:34PM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote: > Kostik Belousov wrote: > > I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in > > libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where this code > > works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on freebsd-ha

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-24 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:12:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:54:34PM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote: > > * The current implementation of rtld has a problem both with > > libpthread and libthr. It works only with libc_r. > > It doesn't work correctly with libc_r. Con

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-25 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:48:34 +0200 Kostik Belousov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did understand the purpose of the thread mask code in > libexec/rtld/rtld_lock.c, or, more precisely, the condition where > this code works (for the context, see the mails with same subject on > freebsd-hackers). >

Re: [patch] Re: dlopen() and dlclose() are not MT-safe? YES, esp. for libthr

2006-03-25 Thread David Xu
在 Saturday 25 March 2006 23:07，Alexander Kabaev 写道： > The thread mask only makes sense when flags are per-thread. I meant > to use it to detect PLT recursions from locking primitives exported to > rtld by the threads library as those are not allowed and threads > implementations are required to t