[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5004B5DF.7090403@barfooze.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:46:23 +0200
From: John Spencer <maillist-luajit@...fooze.de>
To: luajit@...elists.org, Mike Pall <mike-1207@...jit.org>
CC: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
Subject: Re: segfault on x86_64 using musl libc
On 07/16/2012 04:05 PM, Mike Pall wrote:
> Apparently musl doesn't set up thread-local storage correctly.
we had a discussion on the musl mailing list about the TLS issue,
and it turned out that I mistakenly built gcc without --disable-tls.
(musl currently doesn't support TLS for various reasons.)
with gcc fixed, luajit seems to work fine (at least for singlethreaded
usage).
Rich came up with a clever portable (POSIX) way that could be used instead
of the existing non-threadsafe fallback code for OSX/OpenBSD/non-TLS.
please see forwarded Mail content below.
From: Rich Felker <d...@...ifal.cx>
Subject: Re: [musl] thread local storage
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:57:22PM -0400, Gregor Richards wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 03:02 PM, John Spencer wrote:
> >2 out of 14 sabotage followers wanted to use a musl-based system
> >as a platform for luajit (and then were never seen again).
> >so i looked into adding it...
> >
> >luajit builds without problems on musl, but then crashes due to a
> >lack of TLS.
> >
> >is it planned to add this feature ? iirc it wasn't mentioned on
> >the latest roadmap...
> >
> >
> >
> With a quick perusal of the LuaJIT source, this is the only instance
> of TLS I see:
>
> #if LJ_UNWIND_EXT
> #if LJ_TARGET_OSX || defined(__OpenBSD__)
> /* Sorry, no thread safety for OSX. Complain to Apple, not me. */
> static _Unwind_Exception static_uex;
> #else
> static __thread _Unwind_Exception static_uex;
> #endif
>
> Convince it to use the same exception as OS X and OpenBSD and you
> should be in business.
This is broken and non-thread-safe. Not a good idea. Instead try:
#define static_uex (*(_Unwind_Exception
*)pthread_getspecific(static_uex_key))
where static_uex_key is a pthread_key_t initialized earlier with:
pthread_key_create(&static_uex_key, 0);
And where the thread-specific value of the key is set in thread
startup as:
_Unwind_Exception static_uex_local;
pthread_setspecific(static_uex_key, &static_uex_local);
The simplicity and generality of this solution is why __thread was
just a stupid idea to begin with...
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
