Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 12 December 2006 02:22, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> What problem do they cause together? There's certainly no problem with >> Xen+vdso >> > > This was the change which finally got my test system (with an older > SUSE 9.0 based user land to boot). With paravirt older glibc's ld.so > otherwise throws assertation failures because it somehow can't deal with > the new placement. This only happens with paravirt enabled. > > Binary compatibility is important. > Yes, but the old placement of the vdso is incompatible with paravirt guests. The only solution I can think of to keep compatibility is to dynamically place the vdso during boot, but this is complex and introduces an indirection penalty to the fast sysenter syscall path (unless we make that a dynamic patch). What should we do to fix this? Breaking compatibility for paravirt compilation is certainly the easiest thing to do. Zach
