linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Add futex2 syscalls

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: <YL9jpvHQG2wsVTsn@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:33:42 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@...il.com>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
        acme@...nel.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        corbet@....net, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>, fweimer@...hat.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, kernel@...labora.com,
        krisman@...labora.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, malteskarupke@...tmail.fm,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        pgriffais@...vesoftware.com, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, z.figura12@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Add futex2 syscalls

On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:06:48PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 6/8/21 2:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:03:50PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > > On 6/8/21 4:25 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Are shared pthread mutexes using existing pthread APIs that are today
> > > > implemented okay with futex1 system call a good reason to constrain
> > > > futex2 I wonder? Or do we have an opportunity to make a bigger change
> > > > to the API so it suffers less from non deterministic latency (for
> > > > example)?
> > > 
> > > If futex2 is not able to cover futex1 use cases then it cannot be viewed as
> > > a replacement. In the long term this means futex1 cannot be deprecated and
> > > has to be maintained. My impression was that futex1 was basically
> > > unmaintainable(*) and futex2 was an evolution of futex1 so that users of
> > > futex1 could migrate relatively easily and futex1 eventually removed. Maybe
> > > my impression was wrong, but I would like to see futex2 as a replacement and
> > > extension of futex1, so the latter can be deprecated at some point.
> > 
> > You can never delete a kernel system call, so even if you "deprecate"
> > it, it still needs to be supported for forever.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, some syscalls were dropped from kernel in the past,
> after it was established they are no longer used. So it is not impossible,
> though might be more difficult specifically with futex.

Those syscalls were all "compatible with other obsolete operating
system" syscalls from what I remember.  You can still run binaries
built in 1995 just fine on your system today (I have a few around here
somewhere...)

Thinking that you can drop futex() in the next 10+ years is very wishful
thinking given just how slow userspace applications are ever updated,
sorry.

greg k-h