Re: [PATCH] glibc: add ld.so locks in _libc_fork

[Zhixiong Chi <zhixiong.chi@windriver.com>]

On 2017年08月14日 00:35, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:16 +0800, Zhixiong Chi wrote:
>>> The patch in this Bugzilla entry was requested by a customer:
>>>    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4578
>>>    https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19282
>> I'm a little nervous about accepting a patch which has been sitting in
>> the glibc bugzilla for around 10 years. Any idea why upstream haven't
>> taken this?
>>
> patches look sane to me. I would like to see if we can reproduce the
> issue on x86 using the
> testcases from bugzilla

I don't know why the upstream don't take care of it. I guess the reason
may be that the testcases is out of scope and we usually don't use the
unasync-signal-safe function after the forking.

Yes, the testcases from bugzilla can be reproduced easily on every
qemu bsp. At the same time we have done the glibc regression testing,
The patches works well.

Thanks.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
---------------------
Thanks,
Zhixiong Chi
Tel: +86-10-8477-7036