From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and
 thread creation (v10)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:43:50 -0400
Message-ID: <c16c9785-7f8c-430b-a4df-a53e47bf1600@redhat.com>
References: <20190503184219.19266-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <140718133.18261.1559144710554.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <2022553041.20966.1559249801435.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <875zprm4jo.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.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>
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: <87wohzorj0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.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 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.