[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c16c9785-7f8c-430b-a4df-a53e47bf1600@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:43:50 -0400
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and
thread creation (v10)
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists