This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v10)
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer at fb dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Boqun Feng <boqun dot feng at gmail dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson at fb dot com>, Paul Turner <pjt at google dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, linux-api <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:43:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v10)
- References: <20190503184219.19266-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <140718133.18261.1559144710554.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <2022553041.20966.1559249801435.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <875zprm4jo.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <732661684.21584.1559314109886.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87muj2k4ov.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <1528929896.22217.1559326257155.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87o93d4lqb.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <117220011.27079.1559663870037.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87wohzorj0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
On 6/6/19 7:57 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Let me ask the key question again: Does it matter if code observes the
> rseq area first without kernel support, and then with kernel support?
> If we don't expect any problems immediately, we do not need to worry
> much about the constructor ordering right now. I expect that over time,
> fixing this properly will become easier.
I just wanted to chime in and say that splitting this into:
* Ownership (__rseq_handled)
* Initialization (__rseq_abi)
Makes sense to me.
I agree we need an answer to this question of ownership but not yet
initialized, to owned and initialized.
I like the idea of having __rseq_handled in ld.so.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.