[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a700zu9w.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:12:59 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] rseq: Introduce extensible struct rseq
* Carlos O'Donell:
> On 7/13/20 11:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Recent discussion led to a solution for extending struct rseq. This is
>> an implementation of the proposed solution.
>>
>> Now is a good time to agree on this scheme before the release of glibc
>> 2.32, just in case there are small details to fix on the user-space
>> side in order to allow extending struct rseq.
>
> Adding extensibility to the rseq registration process would be great,
> but we are out of time for the glibc 2.32 release.
>
> Should we revert rseq for glibc 2.32 and spend quality time discussing
> the implications of an extensible design, something that Google already
> says they are doing?
>
> We can, with a clear head, and an agreed upon extension mechanism
> include rseq in glibc 2.33 (release scheduled for Feburary 1st 2021).
> We release time boxed every 6 months, no deviation, so you know when
> your next merge window will be.
>
> We have already done the hard work of fixing the nesting signal
> handler issues, and glibc integration. If we revert today that will
> also give time for Firefox and Chrome to adjust their sandboxes.
>
> Do you wish to go forward with rseq as we have it in glibc 2.32,
> or do you wish to revert rseq from glibc 2.32, discuss the extension
> mechanism, and put it back into glibc 2.33 with adjustments?
I posted the glibc revert:
<https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2020-July/116368.html>
I do not think we have any other choice at this point.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists