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]

Message-ID: <574606484.15158.1510692743725.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:52:23 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...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

----- On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Ben Maurer bmaurer@...com wrote:

>>       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'm assuming that if we ever want to use a per-thread userspace/kernel ABI
> we'll want to use this field given the difficulty of getting adoption of
> registration, the need to involve glibc, etc. It seems like there could be
> future use cases of this TLS area that have nothing to do with rseq.

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.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com