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). Look,

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 take

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

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

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 would

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

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

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.