I have some comments that apply to many of the threads. I've been fully occupied with a wedding and a security issue; but I'm about to be free to spend the majority of my time on RSEQ things. I was sorely hoping that day would be today. But it's looking like I'm still a day or two from being free for this. Thank you for the extensive clean-ups and user-side development. I have some updates on these topics also.
- Paul On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers >> <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote: >>> Here is the last RFC round of the updated rseq patchset containing: >> >> Andy? You were the one with concerns here and said you'd have >> something else ready for comparison. >> > > I had a long discussion with Mathieu and KS and I think that this is a > good compromise. I haven't reviewed the series all that carefully, > but I think the idea is sound. > > Basically, event_counter is gone (to be re-added in a later kernel if > it really ends up being necessary, but it looks like it may primarily > be a temptation to write subtly incorrect user code and to see > scheduling details that shouldn't be readily exposed rather than a > genuinely useful feature) and the versioning mechanism for the asm > critical section bit is improved. My crazy proposal should be doable > on top of this if there's demand and if anyone wants to write the > gnarly code involved. > > IOW no objection from me as long as those changes were made, which I > *think* they were. Mathieu?
