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 A33A93858014 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 17:32:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A33A93858014 Received: from mail-il1-f200.google.com (mail-il1-f200.google.com [209.85.166.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-460-fMP06lUKO72eCYLAwKUxpg-1; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 12:31:57 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fMP06lUKO72eCYLAwKUxpg-1 Received: by mail-il1-f200.google.com with SMTP id v11-20020a92c6cb000000b002bae0085284so12571330ilm.11 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:57 -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:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=35uO0GsWL2SrXQdWpTFnMx1XSOqtt2fi2MnGJpcHACk=; b=Wm+ve6CQo0vooDgSgfFQMmDNfWx5dX4mYOpHer8LJrPQe+7++YqYx0uv8r/4K/dbsS sXy4VE16PBF6Dy2iHW4MLHDHQI4LboKcPKUN8PvLvbxDPWT4JEoIwsASatnLeHJJYoaU gmTvUEraj7fnktFORTur+9IwDOhQSYIb5dfQEtcJPjPWjaHqNDbmjUKlCGPiwbWcgI8N uOvO32pXzoiM5Xwo+ELnjMtO5KU3Y94tdcsu0VvHg6ouJrJJKSZ62SDGCS5oDZMctz19 QHbTuQALqPxanYzLu+r1W3PefF02pZ0gK2ANgID1tKhH3VyynVnWdvwfoHwSvd5d2Wtv yorA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nkDRZVNm59oRw1Rgkw5AZcKV22hnIX/X2B2I+LWkcGxelJalq bElum2rRlTZ6pbztP9DMxx5+Zat+AhL+5CQZ6X+f4MJRfUciX/m3LVwrkL1Fw0RusXeJWy4r2YT TsGM8wx0J8M8rJ60KHb67 X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c20b:: with SMTP id v11mr16971490iop.197.1643823116536; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:56 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2yi185LCFnfKSJGv3qbM+JfuYG4eBGGUJQSqi0VdpRqTt9g1uDLptp1k3hBmFinbQ5DPjxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c20b:: with SMTP id v11mr16971481iop.197.1643823116340; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:56 -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 q12sm5998731ilj.51.2022.02.02.09.31.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:31:54 -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 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> From: Carlos O'Donell Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: <87o83pxqh0.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> 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 17:32:02 -0000 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. -- Cheers, Carlos.