* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The projects I know about that use rseq at the moment don't rely on the > old ABI ignoring unset flags: > > - glibc initialize the rseq_abi()->flags to 0 and do not use rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags yet. > - tcmalloc initialize rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags to 0. > - librseq (still only a master branch, no officially released public API yet) initialize > rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->cs_flags to 0. > - the Linux kernel selftests initialize rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->cs_flags > to 0. > - AFAIK DynamoRIO does not rely on the kernel ignoring unset flags bits. > - AFAIK CRIU does not rely on the kernel ignoring unset flags bits. Thanks - that's exhaustive enough. > If anyone else rely on rseq ignoring those unset flags, please yell now. Well, people are unlikely to see random lkml mails - but if gets reported as a regression then we need to revert. But I don't expect it to happen. Thanks, Ingo
