[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1448906726.3717.1594222431276.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 11:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Neel Natu <neelnatu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 5.8 3/4] rseq: Introduce
RSEQ_FLAG_RELIABLE_CPU_ID
[ Context for Linus: I am dropping this RFC patch, but am curious to
hear your point of view on exposing to user-space which system call
behavior fixes are present in the kernel, either through feature
flags or system-call versioning. The intent is to allow user-space
to make better decisions on whether it should use a system call or
rely on fallback behavior. ]
----- On Jul 7, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Florian Weimer fw@...eb.enyo.de wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>
>> It's not a great fit IMO. Just let the kernel version be the arbiter of
>> correctness.
>
> For manual review, sure. But checking it programmatically does not
> yield good results due to backports. Even those who use the stable
> kernel series sometimes pick up critical fixes beforehand, so it's not
> reliable possible for a program to say, “I do not want to run on this
> kernel because it has a bad version”. We had a recent episode of this
> with the Go runtime, which tried to do exactly this.
FWIW, the kernel fix backport issue would also be a concern if we exposed
a numeric "fix level version" with specific system calls: what should
we do if a distribution chooses to include one fix in the sequence,
but not others ? Identifying fixes are "feature flags" allow
cherry-picking specific fixes in a backport, but versions would not
allow that.
That being said, maybe it's not such a bad thing to _require_ the
entire series of fixes to be picked in backports, which would be a
fortunate side-effect of the per-syscall-fix-version approach.
But I'm under the impression that such a scheme ends up versioning
a system call, which I suspect will be a no-go from Linus' perspective.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists