----- On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > ----- On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:43 PM, carlos carlos@xxxxxxxxxx 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. I had issues with cases where application or LD_PRELOAD library also define the __rseq_handled symbol. They appear not to see the same address as the one initialized by ld.so. I tried using the GL() macro in ld.so to set __rseq_handled, but it's the wrong address compared to what the preload lib and application observe. Any thoughts on how to solve this ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
