This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? What do we allow interposed symbols to do?
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:07:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? What do we allow interposed symbols to do?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54456FA1 dot 9070804 at redhat dot com> <20141020204153 dot 83C542C3B0D at topped-with-meat dot com> <54457C4C dot 4080307 at redhat dot com> <20141021224739 dot 080382C3AB2 at topped-with-meat dot com> <54486800 dot 4040806 at redhat dot com> <1414143092 dot 18538 dot 8 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <544A6F76 dot 9050507 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 11:25 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 05:31 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> Allow interposed functions to call back into the runtime, and fix any
> >> places where this breaks.
> >
> > As worded, I do not agree. IMHO, this should be opt-in. It may very
> > well be that we'd want an opt-in for large sets of functionality, but
> > I'd be concerned about promising support for this *in general*.
>
> I concede. You make a good point.
>
> How do we opt-in? Add a new safety annotation? Re-entrant?
I don't know. An annotation would be part of it I guess, but I'm not
sure whether we'd put it on the interposed function, or on the function
that you are allowed to call from the hooks.