lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH glibc 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v5)
----- On Jan 18, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:

> ----- On Jan 14, 2019, at 8:51 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/rseq-sym.c
>> b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/rseq-sym.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..6856d0388a
> [...]
>> +/* volatile because fields can be read/updated by the kernel. */
>> +__thread volatile struct rseq __rseq_abi = {
>> + .cpu_id = RSEQ_CPU_ID_UNINITIALIZED,
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* volatile because refcount can be read/updated by signal handlers. */
>> +__thread volatile uint32_t __rseq_refcount;
>
> Back to the weak vs non-weak question about those two symbols. I understand
> that tagging them as weak symbols has little effect on the dynamic loader
> when it loads libc.so. However, I'm worried about that happens when
> libc is statically linked into an application, and there happens to
> be more than one instance of those symbols (e.g. libc and another library
> define the same symbols, and both are statically linked into the same
> application). Isn't it a situation where tagging those symbols as "weak"
> becomes useful ?

Testing shows that it seems fine to statically link two archives within an
executable in a scenario where each .a defines the same symbol, without
using "weak", so I won't worry about this further.

Thanks,

Mathieu


--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-21 22:25    [W:0.056 / U:2.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site