On 12/14/2012 12:34 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > On 12/14/2012 06:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: >>> Wouldn't the vdso get mapped already and could be mremap()'d. If we >> really need more control I'd almost push for a device/filesystem node >> that could be mmapped the usual way. >> >> Hmm. That may work, but it'll still break ABI. I'm not sure that >> criu is stable enough yet that we should care. Criu people? > > It's not yet, but we'd still appreciate the criu-friendly vdso redesign. > >> (In brief summary: how annoying would it be if the vdso was no longer >> just a bunch of constant bytes that lived somewhere?) > > It depends on what vdso is going to be. In the perfect case it should > a) be mremap-able to any address (or be at fixed address _forever_, but > I assume this is not feasible); > b) have entry points at fixed (or somehow movable) places. > > I admit that I didn't understand your question properly, if I did, > please correct me. >
Either way... criu on the side, we should proceed with this vdso redesign and get support for the 32-bit entry points including compat mode on x86-64. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/