linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:48:16 +0000
From:   Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call


>>>       int rseq(struct rseq * rseq, uint32_t rseq_len, int flags, uint32_t sig);
>> 
>> Really dumb question -- and one I'm sorry to bring up at the last minute. Should
>> we consider making the syscall name something more generic "register_tls_abi"?
> I proposed that approach back in 2016 ("tls abi" system call), and the feedback
> I received back then is that it was preferred to have a dedicated "rseq" system
> call than an "open ended" and generic "tls abi" system call.

Ultimately I'm fine either way. I do think that in the past few months of review it has become clear that creating this tls abi requires a fair bit of work. It'd be a shame to see a future attempt to use such an ABI made difficult by forcing the author to figure out the registration process yet again. I assume the maintainers of glibc would also like to avoid the need to register multiple ABIs.

-b