GCC 7 changed the definition of max_align_t on i386:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=9b5c49ef97e63cc63f1ffa13baf771368105ebe2
As a result, glibc malloc no longer returns memory blocks which are as
aligned as max_align_t requires.
This causes malloc/tst-malloc-thread-fail to fail with an error like this
one:
error: allocation function 0, size 144 not aligned to 16
This patch moves the MALLOC_ALIGNMENT definition to <malloc-alignment.h>
and increases the malloc alignment to 16 for i386.
[BZ #21120]
* malloc/malloc-internal.h (MALLOC_ALIGNMENT): Moved to ...
* sysdeps/generic/malloc-alignment.h: Here. New file.
* sysdeps/i386/malloc-alignment.h: Likewise.
* sysdeps/generic/malloc-machine.h: Include <malloc-alignment.h>.
The dynamic linker currently uses __libc_memalign for TLS-related
allocations. The goal is to switch to malloc instead. If the minimal
malloc follows the ABI fundamental alignment, we can assume that malloc
provides this alignment, and thus skip explicit alignment in a few
cases as an optimization.
It was requested on libc-alpha that MALLOC_ALIGNMENT should be used,
although this results in wasted space if MALLOC_ALIGNMENT is larger
than the fundamental alignment. (The dynamic linker cannot assume
that the non-minimal malloc will provide an alignment of
MALLOC_ALIGNMENT; the ABI provides _Alignof (max_align_t) only.)
Previously, a thread M invoking fork would acquire locks in this order:
(M1) malloc arena locks (in the registered fork handler)
(M2) libio list lock
A thread F invoking flush (NULL) would acquire locks in this order:
(F1) libio list lock
(F2) individual _IO_FILE locks
A thread G running getdelim would use this order:
(G1) _IO_FILE lock
(G2) malloc arena lock
After executing (M1), (F1), (G1), none of the threads can make progress.
This commit changes the fork lock order to:
(M'1) libio list lock
(M'2) malloc arena locks
It explicitly encodes the lock order in the implementations of fork,
and does not rely on the registration order, thus avoiding the deadlock.
