[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d05obl4w.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:20:47 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
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@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] glibc: Perform rseq registration at C startup and thread creation (v21)
* Mathieu Desnoyers:
> diff --git a/manual/threads.texi b/manual/threads.texi
> index bb7a42c655..d5069d5581 100644
> --- a/manual/threads.texi
> +++ b/manual/threads.texi
> +@...typevar {struct rseq} __rseq_abi
> +@...ndards{Linux, sys/rseq.h}
> +@...glibc{} implements a @code{__rseq_abi} TLS symbol to interact with
> +the Restartable Sequences system call. The layout of this structure is
> +defined by the @file{sys/rseq.h} header. Registration of each thread's
> +@...e{__rseq_abi} is performed by @theglibc{} at library initialization
> +and thread creation. The manual for the rseq system call can be found
> +at @uref{https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/librseq/librseq.git/tree/doc/man/rseq.2}.
Should be “creation. The” (two spaces after a sentence-ending period).
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..5e118c1781
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h
> +#ifdef __cplusplus
> +# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) static_assert (expr, diagnostic)
> +# define __rseq_alignof(type) alignof (type)
> +# define __rseq_tls_storage_class thread_local
> +# endif
> +#elif (defined __STDC_VERSION__ ? __STDC_VERSION__ : 0) >= 201112L
> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) _Static_assert (expr, diagnostic)
> +# define __rseq_alignof(type) _Alignof (type)
> +# define __rseq_tls_storage_class _Thread_local
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef __rseq_static_assert
> +/* Try to use _Static_assert macro from sys/cdefs.h. */
> +# ifdef _Static_assert
> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) _Static_assert (expr, diagnostic)
> +# else
> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) /* Nothing. */
> +# endif
> +#endif
> +
> +/* Rely on GNU extensions for older standards and tls model. */
> +#ifdef __GNUC__
> +# ifndef __rseq_alignof
> +# define __rseq_alignof(x) __alignof__ (x)
> +# endif
> +# define __rseq_tls_model_ie __attribute__ ((__tls_model__ ("initial-exec")))
> +#else
> +/* Specifying the TLS model on the declaration is optional. */
> +# define __rseq_tls_model_ie /* Nothing. */
> +#endif
I'm still worried that __rseq_static_assert and __rseq_alignof will show
up in the UAPI with textually different definitions. (This does not
apply to __rseq_tls_model_ie.)
Is my worry unfounded?
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists