* Mathieu Desnoyers:
> I'm unsure whether there are changes I need to do in my rseq patchset, or
> if this is a separate issue that will be fixed separately before glibc 2.31
> is out, which would then update the rseq bits accordingly ?
Someone else (perhaps me) has to fix __libc_multiple_libcs.
- On Sep 11, 2019, at 3:00 PM, carlos car...@redhat.com wrote:
> On 9/11/19 2:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>
>>> +#ifdef SHARED
>>> + if (rtld_active ())
>>> +{
>>> + /* Register rseq ABI to the kernel. */
>>> + (void) rseq_register_current_thread
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:54:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>
> > On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Carlos O'Donell:
> >>
> >>> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
> >>> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
* Florian Weimer:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>
>> On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Carlos O'Donell:
>>>
It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
registration like we do for set_robust_list().
>>>
>>> Note that this depends on the in-tree
* Carlos O'Donell:
> On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Carlos O'Donell:
>>
>>> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
>>> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
>>
>> Note that this depends on the in-tree system call numbers list, which I
On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>
>> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
>> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
>
> Note that this depends on the in-tree system call numbers list, which I
> still need to finish
* Carlos O'Donell:
> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
Note that this depends on the in-tree system call numbers list, which I
still need to finish according to Joseph's specifications.
(We have something
On 9/11/19 2:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>
>> +#ifdef SHARED
>> + if (rtld_active ())
>> +{
>> + /* Register rseq ABI to the kernel. */
>> + (void) rseq_register_current_thread ();
>> +}
>> +#else
>
> I think this will need *another* check for the
* Mathieu Desnoyers:
> +#ifdef SHARED
> + if (rtld_active ())
> +{
> + /* Register rseq ABI to the kernel. */
> + (void) rseq_register_current_thread ();
> +}
> +#else
I think this will need *another* check for the inner libc in an audit
module. See what we do in malloc.
Register rseq(2) TLS for each thread (including main), and unregister
for each thread (excluding main). "rseq" stands for Restartable
Sequences.
See the rseq(2) man page proposed here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/19/647
This patch is based on glibc-2.30. The rseq(2) system call was merged
10 matches
Mail list logo
