More heap corruption / allocator lock problems
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Sat Oct 11 15:48:04 UTC 2003
Till Straumann wrote:
> Hi all.
> Paranoia pays off.
> Today, (thanks to the paranoia check added to PR#504)
> I found one more place where a CORE_mutex (the allocator
> lock) is acquired from a dispatching-disabled code section:
> The task-variable destructor hook (used e.g. by the rtems_shell
> and 'libc userenv')!
> Since it is run as part of a user extension's delete
> hook/callback, the task variable destructor runs with
> dispatching disabled :-(
> Two solutions come to my mind:
> a) memory that is going to be released by a task-variable
> destructor must be allocated from the workspace
I like this solution and it is where I was heading. I was thinking of
"name wrapper macros" that are like rtems_extension_malloc and
which are specifically to be used ONLY from the task create and delete
> b) free could be enhanced:
> if 'free' is called while _Thread_Dispatch_disable_level > 0,
> it sends its pointer argument to a special "gc" thread which
> will eventually execute the real 'free'. The synchronization
> mechanism *must* be nonblocking, of course, to avoid the
> same kind of problem...
> While I feel that b) is 'hackish', it could certainly provide
> backwards compatibility...
Another simpler approach to this might be to have a list like you suggest
but check that it is non-empty on each malloc or free when
is == 0. It doesn't free memory as quickly as a gc thread would but it
would get it into
the heap when it matters.
> -- Till
More information about the users