(and that is for now being worked around by a binutils patch).
The rtld code tested &_DYNAMIC against 0 to see whether rtld itself
was built as PIC or not. While the sparc64 MD code did not rely
on the preset value of the GOT slot for _DYNAMIC any more due
to previous binutils changes, it still used to not be 0, so
that this check did work. The new binutils do however initialize
this slot with 0. As a consequence, rtld would not properly initialize
itself and crash.
Fix that by introducing a new macro, RTLD_IS_DYNAMIC, to take the role
of this test. For sparc64, it is implemented using the rtld_dynamic()
code that was already there. If an architecture does not provide its
own implementation, we default to the old check.
While being there, mark _DYNAMIC as a weak symbol in the sparc64
rtld_start.S. This is needed in the LDSCRIPT case, which is however
not currently supported for want of an actual ldscript.
Sanity checked with md5 on alpha, amd64, i386 and ia64.
rtld. When _DYNAMIC is referenced normally from C the global offset
table is used implicitly, but newer versions of binutils don't initialize
it statically in the binary, so this doesn't work until rtld is relocated,
which _DYNAMIC is needed for... So, as on other systems with the same
problem, we disassemble a call instruction to _DYNAMIC in order to get
its address.
implementation in case default one provided by rtld is
not suitable.
Consolidate various identical MD lock implementation into
a single file using appropriate machine/atomic.h.
Approved by: re (scottl)
They provided little benefit (if any) and they caused some problems
in OpenOffice, at least in post-KSE -current and perhaps in other
environments too. The nanosleep calls prevented the profiling timer
from advancing during the spinloops, thereby preventing the thread
scheduler from ever pre-empting the spinning thread. Alexander
Kabaev diagnosed this problem, Martin Blapp helped with testing,
and Matt Dillon provided some helpful suggestions.
This is a short-term fix for a larger problem. The use of spinlocking
isn't guaranteed to work in all cases. For example, if the spinning
thread has higher priority than all other threads, it may never be
pre-empted, and the thread holding the lock may never progress far
enough to release the lock. On the other hand, spinlocking is the
only locking that can work with an arbitrary unknown threads package.
I have some ideas for a much better fix in the longer term. It
would eliminate all locking inside the dynamic linker by making it
safe for symbol lookups and lazy binding to proceed in parallel
with a call to dlopen or dlclose. This means that the only mutual
exclusion needed would be to prevent multiple simultaneous calls
to dlopen and/or dlclose. That mutual exclusion could be put into
the native pthreads library. Applications using foreign threads
packages would have to make their own arrangements to ensure that
they did not have multiple threads in dlopen and/or dlclose -- a
reasonable requirement in my opinion.
MFC after: 3 days
Untested (testing request went unanswered), but sparc64 is not expected to
cause problems. IA64 is not expected to cause problems but the patch was
slightly more complex so the possibility exists.
Approved by: jdp
