From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ABB53858D37 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 22:28:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9ABB53858D37 Received: from mail-qv1-f69.google.com (mail-qv1-f69.google.com [209.85.219.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-258-tLdTYO_HN3G5ai7bhxmLaw-1; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:28:58 -0500 X-MC-Unique: tLdTYO_HN3G5ai7bhxmLaw-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f69.google.com with SMTP id r12-20020a0562140c8c00b004226c4fc035so897971qvr.4 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:28:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:from:to:cc:references:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GtTZ0IQBRq2ZgYk8dzB8TRg20KSQIQ38+7ukt+l4rQA=; b=dhL53VJ8HhQjz82t/sd0qZvsTUMlhkNRfGB6rg3c4nQGNsnLFjBLqGtpRwOJeP6ddD Gw4IcI7YFA+8Ipto3d7dSd7GtQtGIIEVgBxJwMt1D/B8HTnQDD/j/U1aZ2DVqS0ygSw0 l0tvWPzKnQVIBwTG/V/bV+YRN0rXBcUGu7nSDXYG7xfi8v1VVFpaX5VLSTMAHpMA/lLI qcbOJuWUG79yx3KZYlXfR8h1inCOUgs4lmHS2wbTqSKflct3TaxxZ18OnjqbMOBLiia2 kWr2qQwz+zikM4xJZXpLMM3VGTiHo2dpeOz+s6yyS48X/E5IBQMBQTxleY3kzebwyCX7 lSQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336u2gMhAFIWYo8Y7W9TUE11i5ygW5tXn2VEi00uBRoiVA3G6wa ORfKiYQp55T1JAFPb//D+SCNRhiA4X6oRdzf8hBg+vTrrDLs4C8lUyJAuN0nkKp9pn5Y7fSsxb3 Ei0+8YZqKkhjQCVDL/eSL X-Received: by 2002:a37:c4d:: with SMTP id 74mr21902989qkm.619.1643840937946; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:28:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUnTy7VIm0cuNSXjTF3nE0BcP3j6/SLHPRwHmTzoDfTwRgM97sVQieHS90tuMZ4JXbXhedeQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:c4d:: with SMTP id 74mr21902979qkm.619.1643840937755; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.241] (135-23-175-80.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.175.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm13221670qko.93.2022.02.02.14.28.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:28:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3081decb-11a5-11bf-4810-7c5ebe5dcc51@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:28:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: Aligning tcmalloc with glibc 2.35 rseq ABI From: Carlos O'Donell To: Florian Weimer , Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Chris Kennelly , Peter Oskolkov , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel , libc-alpha , Paul Turner References: <432231420.24682.1643727496135.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87mtja1fuz.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <875ypx1x0d.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <1375227765.27051.1643801804042.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <770517862.27112.1643807335312.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87o83pxqh0.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 22:29:01 -0000 On 2/2/22 12:31, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 2/2/22 10:01, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: >> * Mathieu Desnoyers: >> >>> More to the point: is ptrdiff_t the correct type here ? I think so. >>> Do we want to revert the ABI and wait another 6 months before we >>> bring back rseq into glibc just for this ? I'm not sure this limitation >>> justifies it. >>> >>> So if there is a quick way to fix that before the official 2.35 release, >>> I'm all for it, otherwise I cannot say that __rseq_offset being an "int" >>> rather than a "ptrdiff_t" will make much real-life difference (unless >>> I'm proven wrong). But we will be stuck with this quirk forever. >> >> I'm going to post a patch. It's fairly small. > > I'll review this as glibc release manager for glibc 2.35. > > We'll get this right before I cut the release. I've reviewed the static linker relocation designs, and aside from the odd-duck for ia64, we've used ptrdiff_t sized relocations, nominally 64-bits for the 64-bit targets (though on AArch64 -mtls-size admits at most 48-bits). The ptrdiff_t change will be a part of the glibc 2.35 release: commit 6c33b018438ee799c29486f21d43d8100bdbd597 Author: Florian Weimer Date: Wed Feb 2 22:37:20 2022 +0100 Linux: Use ptrdiff_t for __rseq_offset This matches the data size initial-exec relocations use on most targets. Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell -- Cheers, Carlos.