* Mathieu Desnoyers: > ----- 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. What exactly did you do? How did you determine the addresses? How is __rseq_handled defined in ld.so? Thanks, Florian
