linux-kernel - Re: [patch V6 01/11] rseq: Add fields and constants for time slice extension

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: <840016ad-9188-4df4-904e-b7462b2cfd81@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 12:10:27 +0100
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney"
 <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
 Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>,
 K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ron Geva <rongevarg@...il.com>,
 Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, "carlos@...hat.com" <carlos@...hat.com>,
 Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V6 01/11] rseq: Add fields and constants for time slice
 extension

On 2026-01-19 06:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:30:53AM +0100, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2026-01-19 05:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 05:16:16PM +0100, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>
>>>> My main concern is about the overhead of added system calls at thread
>>>> creation. I recall that doing an additional rseq system call at thread
>>>> creation was analyzed thoroughly for performance regressions at the
>>>> libc level. I would not want to start requiring libc to issue a
>>>> handful of additional prctl system calls per thread creation for no good
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>> A wee something like so?
>>>
>>> That would allow registering rseq with RSEQ_FLAG_SLICE_EXT_DEFAULT_ON
>>> set and if all the stars align, it will then have it on at the end.
>>
>> That's a very good step in the right direction. I just wonder how
>> userspace is expected to learn that it runs on a kernel which
>> accepts the RSEQ_FLAG_SLICE_EXT_DEFAULT_ON flag ?
>>
>> I think it could expect it when getauxval for AT_RSEQ_FEATURE_SIZE
>> includes the slice ext field. This gives us a cheap way to know
>> from userspace whether this new flag is supported or not.
> 
> struct rseq vs struct rseq_data. I don't think that slice field is
> exposed on the user side of things.

Yes it is. (unless I'm missing something ?)

See the original patch of this thread at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20251215155708.669472597@linutronix.de/

--- a/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h
[...]

@@ -142,6 +174,12 @@ struct rseq {
  	__u32 mm_cid;

  	/*
+	 * Time slice extension control structure. CPU local updates from
+	 * kernel and user space.
+	 */
+	struct rseq_slice_ctrl slice_ctrl;
+
+	/*
  	 * Flexible array member at end of structure, after last feature field.
  	 */
  	char end[];

> 
> I was thinking it could just try with the flag the firs time, and then
> record if that worked or not and use the 'correct' value for all future
> rseq calls.

That would work too, but would waste a system call on process startup in case
of failure. Not a big deal, but checking with getauxval would be better because
this information is already exported to userspace at program execution and
available without doing any system call.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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