From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup
 and thread creation (v10)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <914051741.43025.1560348011775.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <20190503184219.19266-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <732661684.21584.1559314109886.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87muj2k4ov.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <1528929896.22217.1559326257155.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87o93d4lqb.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <117220011.27079.1559663870037.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87wohzorj0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <c16c9785-7f8c-430b-a4df-a53e47bf1600@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <c16c9785-7f8c-430b-a4df-a53e47bf1600@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: carlos <carlos@redhat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

----- On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:43 PM, carlos carlos@redhat.com wrote:

> 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.

Very good, so I'll implement this approach. Sorry for the delayed
feedback, I am traveling this week.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com