On 12/31/2014 04:31 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 31, 2014, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The reason I want to use this definition is to more formally describe >> those functions which are safe to call from a user provided malloc. >> A user provided malloc can be called from almost anywhere in glibc, it >> interrupts core glibc code, it only synchronously interrupts core >> glibc code (when malloc is called), and limiting a user provided malloc >> to AS-safe functions would be punative (though that is what we'll be >> doing in the initial documentation pass). > > Hmm... Given that making malloc AS-Safe is reuqired POSIX compliance, > what would we gain by enabling malloc implementations to call functions > beyond other AS-Safe functions? I mean, a malloc implementation cannot > be AS-Safe if it calls AS-Unsafe functions, nor can it be MT-Safe if it > calls MT-Unsafe functions, even if they are Reentrant under the > definition you provided, so... Wouldn't enabling malloc to call them > making sure we won't ever be able to make malloc AS-Safe, and thus > POSIX-compliant? I did not know malloc was required to be AS-safe for POSIX compliance. Could you please quote the relevant part of the issue 7 standard? See: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_04.html 2.4.3 Signal Actions. The list of functions does not list malloc. >> Hopefully that clarifies the definition of reentrancy. > > Yes, thanks for all the effort into clarifying what you meant, even > though just the definition would have been enough. My pleasure. A list of examples helps not just you but future readers. Cheers, Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
