Re: RFC: tunables failure indications...

[DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>]

"Carlos O'Donell" <codonell@redhat.com> writes:
> Almost. _dl_fatal_printf is noreturn and calls _exit (127).

Done.

From b50d6a577bf2f118923ce0e1b159c4d659815405 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:36:58 -0500
Subject: tunables: report sbrk() failure


diff --git a/elf/dl-tunables.c b/elf/dl-tunables.c
index e625ac1a7d..f0d7d42770 100644
--- a/elf/dl-tunables.c
+++ b/elf/dl-tunables.c
@@ -45,12 +45,11 @@ tunables_strdup (const char *in)
   while (in[i++] != '\0');
   char *out = __sbrk (i);
 
-  /* FIXME: In reality if the allocation fails, __sbrk will crash attempting to
-     set the thread-local errno since the TCB has not yet been set up.  This
-     needs to be fixed with an __sbrk implementation that does not set
-     errno.  */
+  /* For most of the tunables code, we ignore user errors.  However,
+     this is a system error - and running out of memory at program
+     startup should be reported, so we do.  */
   if (out == (void *)-1)
-    return NULL;
+    _dl_fatal_printf ("sbrk() failure while processing tunables\n");
 
   i--;