[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mu4028uk.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:42:11 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] rseq: Allow extending struct rseq
* Mathieu Desnoyers:
> So indeed it could be done today without upgrading the toolchains by
> writing custom assembler for each architecture to get the thread's
> struct rseq. AFAIU the ABI to access the thread pointer is fixed for
> each architecture, right ?
Yes, determining the thread pointer and access initial-exec TLS
variables is baked into the ABI.
> How would this allow early-rseq-adopter libraries to interact with
> glibc ?
Under all extension proposals I've seen so far, early adopters are
essentially incompatible with glibc rseq registration. I don't think
you can have it both ways.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists