Re: [PATCH 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v10)
From: Florian Weimer
Date: Fri Jun 14 2019 - 06:11:48 EST
* 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?