* Ingo Molnar: > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> rseq_abi()->flags and rseq_abi()->rseq_cs->flags 29 upper bits are >> currently unused. >> >> The current behavior when those bits are set is to ignore them. This is >> not an ideal behavior, because when future features will start using >> those flags, if user-space fails to correctly validate that the kernel >> indeed supports those flags (e.g. with a new sys_rseq flags bit) before >> using them, it may incorrectly assume that the kernel will handle those >> flags way when in fact those will be silently ignored on older kernels. >> >> Validating that unused flags bits are cleared will allow a smoother >> transition when those flags will start to be used by allowing >> applications to fail early, and obviously, when they attempt to use the >> new flags on an older kernel that does not support them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> kernel/rseq.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/rseq.c b/kernel/rseq.c >> index 81d7dc80787b..bda8175f8f99 100644 >> --- a/kernel/rseq.c >> +++ b/kernel/rseq.c >> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32 cs_flags) >> u32 flags, event_mask; >> int ret; >> >> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS)) >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cs_flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || cs_flags) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> /* Get thread flags. */ >> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static int rseq_need_restart(struct task_struct *t, u32 cs_flags) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS)) >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & RSEQ_CS_NO_RESTART_FLAGS) || flags) >> return -EINVAL; > > Just to make it clear: no existing libraries/tooling out there have learned > to rely on the old ABI that ignored unset flags, right? Only then is this > patch ABI-safe. I believe glibc initializes the flag fields to zero before calling the rseq system call. (I don't know if the rseq system call does its own initialization; maybe it should if it doesn't do so already.) Thanks, Florian
