diff options
author | Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> | 2023-10-18 11:30:38 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> | 2023-10-18 11:30:38 +0200 |
commit | dd32e1db386c77c61850a7cbd0c126b7b3c63ece (patch) | |
tree | 9f0c9c3ead1a6be1c63b6841c85ec5597bf10f6a /resolv/tst-resolv-threads.c | |
parent | 2ad9b674cf6cd6ba59c064427cb7aeb43a66d8a9 (diff) | |
download | glibc-dd32e1db386c77c61850a7cbd0c126b7b3c63ece.tar.gz glibc-dd32e1db386c77c61850a7cbd0c126b7b3c63ece.tar.xz glibc-dd32e1db386c77c61850a7cbd0c126b7b3c63ece.zip |
Revert "elf: Always call destructors in reverse constructor order (bug 30785)"
This reverts commit 6985865bc3ad5b23147ee73466583dd7fdf65892. Reason for revert: The commit changes the order of ELF destructor calls too much relative to what applications expect or can handle. In particular, during process exit and _dl_fini, after the revert commit, we no longer call the destructors of the main program first; that only happens after some dlopen'ed objects have been destructed. This robs applications of an opportunity to influence destructor order by calling dlclose explicitly from the main program's ELF destructors. A couple of different approaches involving reverse constructor order were tried, and none of them worked really well. It seems we need to keep the dependency sorting in _dl_fini. There is also an ambiguity regarding nested dlopen calls from ELF constructors: Should those destructors run before or after the object that called dlopen? Commit 6985865bc3ad5b2314 used reverse order of the start of ELF constructor calls for destructors, but arguably using completion of constructors is more correct. However, that alone is not sufficient to address application compatibility issues (it does not change _dl_fini ordering at all).
Diffstat (limited to 'resolv/tst-resolv-threads.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions