Hi Ralf and thanks for looking at this!
>> Thanks for the bug report.
>>
>> * Dave Brolley wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:39:23PM CET:
>> >/ /
>> >/ The attached patch fixes a problem with a dangling pointer in
lt_dlexit /
>> >/ withing libltdl. The problem is that lt_dlclose is recursively
called /
>> >/ (via unload_deplibs) in order to close dependent libraries. One
of these /
>> >/ might be (and was for me!) the one pointed to by 'cur'./
>>
>> I have trouble reproducing this bug easily. Which system does it happen
>> on?
It happened in a cygwin 1.6.9 environment on Windows XP Home edition.
>> How does the graph formed by modules/libraries and
>> interdependencies (linking against/dlopening) look like?
The linked list looked at the time like this:
lib1 -> lib2 -> lib3 -> lib4 -> etc.
What happed was that 'cur' was at the head of the list (pointing at
lib1). 'tmp' was then set to 'cur' and 'cur' was advanced to point to
lib2. At this point lt_dlclose was called using 'tmp' to close lib1.
This call determined that lib2 and lib3 were dependent libraries and
they were closed (and removed from the list) by recursive calls to
lt_dlclose. This left 'cur' pointing to unallocated memory which
eventually caused a crash.
>> In what order
>> are things opened/linked against, which ones are closed explicitly, for
>> this to trigger? Do you mix calls to lt_dlopen with direct calls to
>> dlopen? Do you mix libraries created with libtool with libraries
>> created without?
These questions will take some time to sort out. Hopefully you can
create a test case using the information I've given above in the mean
time. The application in question is Red Hat's SID simulator
(sources.redhat.com). Given time, I should be able to come up with a
test case if necessary.
>> >/ @@ -283,10 +283,19 @@ lt_dlexit (void)/
>> >/ {/
>> >/ ++errors;/
>> >/ }/
>> >/ }/
>> >/ }/
>> >/ + /* Make sure that the handle pointed to by 'cur' still exists./
>> >/ + lt_dlclose recursively closes dependent libraries which removes/
>> >/ + them from the linked list. One of these might be the one/
>> >/ + pointed to by 'cur'. *//
>> >/ + for (tmp = handles; tmp; tmp = tmp->next)/
>> >/ + if (tmp == cur)/
>> >/ + break;/
>> >/ + if (! tmp)/
>> >/ + cur = handles;/
>>
>> If the description is correct, the whole addition could go in the true
>> branch of the `if (tmp->info.ref_count <= level)' test, no?
You are correct. I have attached a new patch which corrects this and
also corrects a problem with my previous patch. My previous patch causes
an infinite loop in the case that a resident library is in the linked
list. In this case 'cur' gets reset to 'handles' when the end of the
list is reached because 'tmp' ends up being NULL in my new loop. Because
of the resident library, 'handles' is not NULL and the list is traversed
repeatedly ad-infinitum. The fix is to make sure that 'cur' is not NULL
before searching for it in the list.
Thanks,
Dave
2007-01-24 Dave Brolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libltdl/ltdl.c (lt_dlexit): Make sure that 'cur' is not NULL before
checking that it is still in the list.
Index: libltdl/ltdl.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/libtool/libtool/libltdl/ltdl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.245
diff -c -p -r1.245 ltdl.c
*** libltdl/ltdl.c 13 Oct 2006 14:11:18 -0000 1.245
--- libltdl/ltdl.c 24 Jan 2007 21:52:46 -0000
*************** lt_dlexit (void)
*** 283,288 ****
--- 283,300 ----
{
++errors;
}
+ /* Make sure that the handle pointed to by 'cur' still
exists.
+ lt_dlclose recursively closes dependent libraries
which removes
+ them from the linked list. One of these might be the
one
+ pointed to by 'cur'. */
+ if (cur)
+ {
+ for (tmp = handles; tmp; tmp = tmp->next)
+ if (tmp == cur)
+ break;
+ if (! tmp)
+ cur = handles;
+ }
}
}
}
_______________________________________________
Bug-libtool mailing list
Bug-libtool@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
