From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] elf: Implement force_first handling in _dl_sort_maps_dfs
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 16:30:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a95aec1afdeead3d59ab1b8a71b4224fb490321f.1660573629.git.fweimer@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1660573629.git.fweimer@redhat.com>
As documented in a comment _dl_close_worker, the skipping is actually
needed for correctness. It also seems less surprising if the
just-opened object is always initialized last, even in the presence
of cycles.
---
elf/dl-sort-maps.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
elf/dso-sort-tests-1.def | 7 +++++++
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/elf/dl-sort-maps.c b/elf/dl-sort-maps.c
index 5b550b1e94..cd2d9c93fc 100644
--- a/elf/dl-sort-maps.c
+++ b/elf/dl-sort-maps.c
@@ -182,8 +182,9 @@ dfs_traversal (struct link_map ***rpo, struct link_map *map,
static void
_dl_sort_maps_dfs (struct link_map **maps, unsigned int nmaps,
- bool force_first __attribute__ ((unused)), bool for_fini)
+ bool force_first, bool for_fini)
{
+ struct link_map *first_map = maps[0];
for (int i = nmaps - 1; i >= 0; i--)
maps[i]->l_visited = 0;
@@ -208,14 +209,6 @@ _dl_sort_maps_dfs (struct link_map **maps, unsigned int nmaps,
Adjusting the order so that maps[0] is last traversed naturally avoids
this problem.
- Further, the old "optimization" of skipping the main object at maps[0]
- from the call-site (i.e. _dl_sort_maps(maps+1,nmaps-1)) is in general
- no longer valid, since traversing along object dependency-links
- may "find" the main object even when it is not included in the initial
- order (e.g. a dlopen()'ed shared object can have circular dependencies
- linked back to itself). In such a case, traversing N-1 objects will
- create a N-object result, and raise problems.
-
To summarize, just passing in the full list, and iterating from back
to front makes things much more straightforward. */
@@ -274,6 +267,30 @@ _dl_sort_maps_dfs (struct link_map **maps, unsigned int nmaps,
}
memcpy (maps, rpo, sizeof (struct link_map *) * nmaps);
+
+ /* Skipping the first object at maps[0] is not valid in general,
+ since traversing along object dependency-links may "find" that
+ first object even when it is not included in the initial order
+ (e.g. a dlopen()'ed shared object can have circular dependencies
+ linked back to itself). In such a case, traversing N-1 objects
+ will create a N-object result, and raise problems. Instead,
+ force the object back into first place after sorting. */
+ if (force_first && maps[0] != first_map)
+ {
+ struct link_map *saved = maps[0];
+ maps[0] = first_map;
+ int i = 1;
+ while (true)
+ {
+ assert (i < nmaps);
+ struct link_map *current = maps[i];
+ maps[i] = saved;
+ if (current == first_map)
+ break;
+ saved = current;
+ ++i;
+ }
+ }
}
void
diff --git a/elf/dso-sort-tests-1.def b/elf/dso-sort-tests-1.def
index 5f7f18ef27..4bf9052db1 100644
--- a/elf/dso-sort-tests-1.def
+++ b/elf/dso-sort-tests-1.def
@@ -64,3 +64,10 @@ output: b>a>{}<a<b
tst-bz15311: {+a;+e;+f;+g;+d;%d;-d;-g;-f;-e;-a};a->b->c->d;d=>[ba];c=>a;b=>e=>a;c=>f=>b;d=>g=>c
output(glibc.rtld.dynamic_sort=1): {+a[d>c>b>a>];+e[e>];+f[f>];+g[g>];+d[];%d(b(e(a()))a()g(c(a()f(b(e(a()))))));-d[];-g[];-f[];-e[];-a[<a<c<d<g<f<b<e];}
output(glibc.rtld.dynamic_sort=2): {+a[d>c>b>a>];+e[e>];+f[f>];+g[g>];+d[];%d(b(e(a()))a()g(c(a()f(b(e(a()))))));-d[];-g[];-f[];-e[];-a[<g<f<a<b<c<d<e];}
+
+# Test that even in the presence of dependency loops involving dlopen'ed
+# object, that object is initialized last (and not unloaded prematurely).
+# Final destructor order is indeterminate due to the cycle.
+tst-bz28937: {+a;+b;-b;+c;%c};a->a1;a->a2;a2->a;b->b1;c->a1;c=>a1
+output(glibc.rtld.dynamic_sort=1): {+a[a2>a1>a>];+b[b1>b>];-b[<b<b1];+c[c>];%c(a1());}<a<a2<c<a1
+output(glibc.rtld.dynamic_sort=2): {+a[a2>a1>a>];+b[b1>b>];-b[<b<b1];+c[c>];%c(a1());}<a2<a<c<a1
--
2.37.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-15 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-15 14:30 [PATCH 0/3] Forced ordering for DFS ELF dependency sorting (bug 28937) Florian Weimer
2022-08-15 14:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] scripts/dso-ordering-test.py: Generate program run-time dependencies Florian Weimer
2022-08-15 14:35 ` Florian Weimer
2022-08-29 14:30 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-08-15 14:30 ` [PATCH 2/3] elf: Rename _dl_sort_maps parameter from skip to force_first Florian Weimer
2022-08-29 16:40 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-08-15 14:30 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2022-08-31 16:37 ` [PATCH 3/3] elf: Implement force_first handling in _dl_sort_maps_dfs Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-08-31 16:37 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-09-06 6:39 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a95aec1afdeead3d59ab1b8a71b4224fb490321f.1660573629.git.fweimer@redhat.com \
--to=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).