From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475064-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25473 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2015 11:49:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25401 invoked by uid 55); 27 Jan 2015 11:49:03 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/64535] Emergency buffer for exception allocation too small
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64535-4-bwq1bYjH1m@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64535-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64535-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg03058.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535

--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
> 
> --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Ah, I 
> assumed the lack of destructor was intentional, so we can still deal 
> with exceptions while destroying globals. Otherwise an exception could 
> try to allocate from the pool after the destructor has run.

Well - technically accessing emergency_pool after its default destructor
ran is undefined (though we don't seem to run any destructor on it...
I wonder if we do for __scoped_lock and if that works).

I hope that initialization/destruction order imposed by some means
allows EH to be thrown during initialization or destruction (though
what would catch that?)

We can make the patch safer by using

  pool::~pool ()
    {
      __gnu_cxx::__scoped_lock sentry(emergency_mutex);
      free (arena);
      arena = NULL;
    }

and/or by attaching a init_priority to the class.

But again - where can you catch exceptions thrown from global
initializers / destructors?  If I throw from a __thread global
constructor will the parent process be able to catch that exception
somehow?