----- On Jun 24, 2020, at 3:11 PM, Florian Weimer fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > * Mathieu Desnoyers: > >>> I'm still worried that __rseq_static_assert and __rseq_alignof will show >>> up in the UAPI with textually different definitions. (This does not >>> apply to __rseq_tls_model_ie.) >> >> What makes this worry not apply to __rseq_tls_model_ie ? > > It's not needed by the kernel header because it doesn't contain a > __rseq_abi declaration. > >>> >>> Is my worry unfounded? >> >> So AFAIU you worry that eventually sys/rseq.h and linux/rseq.h carry different >> definitions of __rseq_static_assert and __rseq_alignof. >> >> Indeed, I did not surround those #define with #ifndef/#endif. Maybe we should ? >> >> Just in case the definitions end up being different (worse case scenario), we >> should expect their behavior to be pretty much equivalent. So going for the >> following should address your concern I think: > > I think we should keep things simple on the glibc side for now and do > this changes to the kernel headers first. Just to be sure I understand what you mean by "keep things simple", do you recommend removing the following lines completely for now from sys/rseq.h ? /* Ensure the compiler supports rseq_align. */ __rseq_static_assert (__rseq_alignof (struct rseq_cs) >= 32, "alignment"); __rseq_static_assert (__rseq_alignof (struct rseq) >= 32, "alignment"); Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
