This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? -- No. (Roland was right).
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:50:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? -- No. (Roland was right).
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5488F9C6 dot 9080605 at redhat dot com> <54898FE0 dot 8060701 at redhat dot com> <20141211133353 dot GB10717 at domone> <5489A11A dot 3080300 at redhat dot com> <20141211141136 dot GA17090 at domone>
On 12/11/2014 03:11 PM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
Yes, I wrote that from head so I forgot volatile/asm barrier. One could
add requirement like needs to be compiled by gcc4-6+ instead pure C as
just using signals is not part of C standard.
GCC emulates atomics with locks on some platforms, or some lock-free
instruction sequences may not be reentrant. This begins to look like a
can of worms, unfortunately.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security