On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 11:45 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 23:37 +0200, benja...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
> > From: Benjamin Berg
> >
> > There should be no need for this.
>
> "should" ;-)
>
> This breaks things if glibc enables rseq. That might even be already
> broken in t
On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 12:08 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 11:45 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 23:37 +0200, benja...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
> > > From: Benjamin Berg
> > >
> > > There should be no need for this.
> >
> > "should" ;-)
>
> Hmm, I would
On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 11:45 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 23:37 +0200, benja...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
> > From: Benjamin Berg
> >
> > There should be no need for this.
>
> "should" ;-)
Hmm, I would have expected the previous patch is what breaks it.
i.e. this line that
On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 23:37 +0200, benja...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
> From: Benjamin Berg
>
> There should be no need for this.
"should" ;-)
This breaks things if glibc enables rseq. That might even be already
broken in the sense that it might corrupt memory that's put at the same
place the rse
From: Benjamin Berg
There should be no need for this. It may be that this used to work
around another issue where after a clone the MM was in a bad state.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Berg
---
arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 2 --
arch/um/kernel/process.c | 2 --
arch/um/kernel/tlb.c
