[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <217e8254-8629-2a75-b717-43ebcc43ea6c@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:50:15 -0700
From: "LeMay, Michael" <michael.lemay@...el.com>
To: "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] support SafeStack in init and threading
On 11/2/2016 10:40, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * LeMay, Michael <michael.lemay@...el.com> [2016-11-02 09:56:14 -0700]:
>> On 11/1/2016 16:52, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> * LeMay, Michael <michael.lemay@...el.com> [2016-10-28 20:00:24 +0000]:
>> ...
>>>> + if (pthread_getattr_np(self, &attr) != 0)
>>>> + a_crash();
>>> this may have significant startup overhead because determining
>>> the main stack size is not optimized.
>> I could use a constant stack size here instead. However, this will be
>> needed for supporting a separate stack segment, since it is used to
>> determine the proper limit for the DS and ES segments.
> ok
>
> the pthread_* symbol should be moved to the reserved
> namespace (__pthread_*) since this code will get
> static linked into iso c conforming code which is
> allowed to redefine pthread_*.
pthread_getattr_np and pthread_attr_getstack currently have strong
definitions in musl. Are you proposing that I rename the existing
definitions into the __pthread_* namespace and add weak aliases?
By the way, I need to update my patch of __pthread_create to pass
new->stack as the second parameter to __clone, since
__safestack_init_thread updates that field.
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.
