[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201031092204.527aac8e@vostro.wlan>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:22:04 +0200
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>
To: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, "Milan P. Stanić"
<mps@...anta.net>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MT fork
Hi
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 15:31:54 -0600
Ariadne Conill <ariadne@...eferenced.org> wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2020 12:57:17 PM MDT Rich Felker wrote:
> > There was a regression in musl too, I think. With
> > 27b2fc9d6db956359727a66c262f1e69995660aa you should be able to
> > re-enable parallel mark. If you get a chance to test, let us know if
> > it works for you.
>
> I have pushed current musl git plus the MT fork patch to Alpine edge
> as Alpine musl 1.2.2_pre0, and reenabling parallel mark has worked
> fine.
>
> It would be nice to have a musl 1.2.2 release that I can use for the
> source tarball instead of a git snapshot, but this will do for now.
And now firefox is utterly broken. Though seems to be not related to MT
fork patch.
Bisected it down to commit b8b729bd22c28c9116c2fce65dce207a35299c26
"fix missing O_LARGEFILE values on x86_64, x32, and mips64"
I think this breaks the seccomp because now e.g. fopen() calls has this
bit set for the syscall and seccomp does not like it.
Wondering whether to fix firefox seccomp ignore this bit, or if this
commit needs reconsideration?
Timo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
