On 9/11/19 2:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> +#ifdef SHARED
>> +  if (rtld_active ())
>> +    {
>> +      /* Register rseq ABI to the kernel.   */
>> +      (void) rseq_register_current_thread ();
>> +    }
>> +#else
> 
> I think this will need *another* check for the inner libc in an audit
> module.  See what we do in malloc.  __libc_multiple_libcs is supposed to
> cover that, but it's unfortunately not reliable.
> 
> I believe without that additional check, the first audit module we load
> will claim rseq, and the main program will not have control over the
> rseq area.  Reversed roles would be desirable here.
> 
> In October, I hope to fix __libc_multiple_libcs, and then you can use
> just that.  (We have a Fedora patch that is supposed to fix it, I need
> to documen the mechanism and upstream it.)

This is a technical issue we can resolve.

>> +/* Advertise Restartable Sequences registration ownership across
>> +   application and shared libraries.
>> +
>> +   Libraries and applications must check whether this variable is zero or
>> +   non-zero if they wish to perform rseq registration on their own. If it
>> +   is zero, it means restartable sequence registration is not handled, and
>> +   the library or application is free to perform rseq registration. In
>> +   that case, the library or application is taking ownership of rseq
>> +   registration, and may set __rseq_handled to 1. It may then set it back
>> +   to 0 after it completes unregistering rseq.
>> +
>> +   If __rseq_handled is found to be non-zero, it means that another
>> +   library (or the application) is currently handling rseq registration.
>> +
>> +   Typical use of __rseq_handled is within library constructors and
>> +   destructors, or at program startup.  */
>> +
>> +int __rseq_handled;
> 
> Are there any programs that use __rseq_handled *today*?
> 
> I'm less convinced that we actually need this.  I don't think we have
> ever done anything like that before, and I don't think it's necessary.
> Any secondary rseq library just needs to note if it could perform
> registration, and if it failed to do so, do not perform unregistration
> in a pthread destructor callback.
> 
> Sure, there's the matter of pthread destructor ordering, but that
> problem is not different from any other singleton (thread-local or not),
> and the fix for the last time this has come up (TLS destructors vs
> dlclose) was to upgrade glibc.

This is a braoder issue.

Mathieu,

It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
registration like we do for set_robust_list().

What's your thought there?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Reply via email to