linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] liblockdep: support using LD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5113BABA.6010306@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:31:22 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...cle.com>
CC:	mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...nel.org,
	acme@...stprotocols.net, paulus@...ba.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] liblockdep: support using LD_PRELOAD

On 02/07/2013 05:28 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> +int pthread_rwlock_init(pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
>> > +			const pthread_rwlockattr_t *attr)
>> > +{
>> > +	if (ll_pthread_rwlock_init == NULL)
>> > +		init_preload();
> Why is this one special, doesn't init_preload being a constructor make 
> this redundant?

I was testing it on different things, and stumbled on an interesting case:
when pthread_mutex was taken from the constructor of a different module.

In that case, the other constructor would try to init the mutex and take
a lock, but we would segfault because we haven't resolved the pthread
symbols yet ourselves (since our constructor was yet to be called).


Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/