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
