* Mathieu Desnoyers: > Just to clarify: should the discussion here prevent the UAPI > documentation change from being merged into the Linux kernel ? Our > discussion seems to be related to integration of rseq into glibc, > rather than the kernel UAPI per se. I still think that clearing rseq_cs upon exit from the function that contains the sequence is good practice, and the UAPI header should mention that. For glibc, if I recall correctly, we decided against doing anything in dlclose to deal with this issue (remapping new code in an existing rseq area) because it would need updating all threads, not just the thread calling dlclose. That's why we're punting this to applications and why I think the UAPI header should mention this.
