[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimdne9WVDfooOGcVDtAaG=G4T7uTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:05:51 -0400
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
>> If this is considered enough of a regression, then I guess we can
>> leave vsyscall64 around for awhile, but it will require extra work in
>> the soon-to-be syscall emulation hack to make sure that UML can still
>> trap the syscall.
>
> As long the time within UML is synchronous with the host everything is
> fine, right?
I think so. I haven't used UML in a long time.
> So, as _last_ choice we could disable the ability to change the time within UML.
>
> IMHO it's not a big deal when getcpu() returns a wrong CPU layout on UML.
>
>> The real solution is to fix glibc to use the vDSO which should avoid
>> this problem entirely.
>
> Is this "bug" known? And the biggest question, will Ulrich fix it some day?
I added the bit about UML to
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12813. I don't know
what Ulrich will do.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists