On Sunday 12 April 2009 17:48:44 Jamie Lokier wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > presumably the resolver is smart enough to not add a library to the > > list until it's completely ready. especially considering the ldso > > has no locking in it that i can see which means the problem would be > > there regardless of forking. any thread doing dlopen(RTLD_GLOBAL) > > would trigger the same issue. > > If there's no locking in dlopen and it's still thread safe against > ld.so resolving, I agree, it should be fine. Are you sure there's no > locking? Glibc's ld-linux.so and libdl.so have some tls_ and pthread_ > references.
i'm talking about uClibc, not glibc. i dont see any locking in the ldso or libdl code, or i'm not looking hard enough. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
