[plain text now]
Thanks again for reaching us.
The new TLS implementation *is* a problem for us as it turns out.
At least for LeakSanitizer (lsan) it will cause a false positive leak report.
Admittedly, the current lsan's implementation has an ugly hack around TLS,
which was the major reason for filing
In short, we treat __libc_memalign called from elf/dl-tls.c in a special way
which allows us to include the dynamic TLS into the leak detector's
memory root set.
I suggest we continue the discussion in
unless you prefer otherwise. Let me post more details there.
I also suspect that the new TLS implementation may cause us trouble in
but I haven't tried to verify that yet.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Carlos O'Donell <car...@redhat.com
> I've forwarded your response to libc-alpha which I assume rejected
> your multi-part plain/html email.
> I've also corrected the small mistake that the next release is 2.19
> not 2.20. Sorry.
> Hi Carlos,
> Thanks for the heads up!
> I don't expect any impact on ASan from this change.
> We'd still test ASan with the new glibc to make sure.
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Carlos O'Donell <car...@redhat.com
> Hello Konstantin!,
> You're getting this email because you're the only ASan expert I know,
> and I was at your talk at LFCS2013 ;-)
> We have a problem and we'd like your input if you have time.
> The GNU C Library version 2.20 (coming out at the end of the month)
> plans to stop using malloc for TLS allocations. The reason for this
> is that malloc is async-signal unsafe, and TLS accessed in signal
> handlers may need to allocate storage at the time of access. This
> is particularly true of signal handlers provided by dlopened shared
> libraries. There is no way to interpose yourself here because the
> non-malloc signal-safe allocator being used is internal to glibc.
> What kind of impact do you see this having on ASan?
> Do you see any way we can mitigate this impact?