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;
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- no longer valid, since traversing along object dependency-links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. */
}
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. This naive
+ approach may introduce further dependency ordering violations
+ compared to rotating the cycle until the first map is again in
+ the first position, but as there is a cycle, at least one
+ violation is already present. */
+ if (force_first && maps[0] != first_map)
+ {
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; maps[i] != first_map; ++i)
+ ;
+ assert (i < nmaps);
+ memmove (&maps[1], maps, i * sizeof (maps[0]));
+ maps[0] = first_map;
+ }
}
void
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