Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates

[Andrew Lutomirski]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:51 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
<richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
>> <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM, richard -rw- weinberger
>>>> If this is considered enough of a regression, then I guess we can
>>>> leave vsyscall64 around for awhile, but it will require extra work in
>>>> the soon-to-be syscall emulation hack to make sure that UML can still
>>>> trap the syscall.
>>>
>>> As long the time within UML is synchronous with the host everything is
>>> fine, right?
>>
>> I think so.  I haven't used UML in a long time.
>>
>>> So, as _last_ choice we could disable the ability to change the time within UML.
>>>
>>> IMHO it's not a big deal when getcpu() returns a wrong CPU layout on UML.
>>>
>>>> The real solution is to fix glibc to use the vDSO which should avoid
>>>> this problem entirely.
>>>
>
> Yesterday I had a closer look at 64bit UML.
> Glibc is always using vsyscalls because 64bit UML does not support the vDSO.
>
> On 32bit UML simply scans the ELF auxiliary vector provided by the host to
> get the address of the vDSO.
> How can I get this address on a 64bit host?

I believe it's exactly the same.  There's an auxv entry that points to the vDSO.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/