Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] arm64: vdso: Prepare for robust futex unlock support

Thomas Weißschuh
2026-04-26T18:07:59Z

Hi André,

Some more comments, after doing an actual proper review.

On 2026-04-24 15:56:00-0300, André Almeida wrote:
> There will be a VDSO function to unlock non-contended robust futexes in
> user space. The unlock sequence is racy vs. clearing the list_pending_op
> pointer in the task's robust list head. To plug this race the kernel needs
> to know the critical section window so it can clear the pointer when the
> task is interrupted within that race window. The window is determined by
> labels in the inline assembly.
>
> Signed-off-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@igalia.com>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Fixed linker not finding VDSO symbols
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vdso.lds.S | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)

What is the reason for splitting the series into two patches?
To me it looks like it should be one patch.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c
> index 592dd8668de4..f9c520a1c942 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vdso.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> #include <linux/clocksource.h>
> #include <linux/elf.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/futex.h>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/gfp.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> @@ -57,6 +58,33 @@ static struct vdso_abi_info vdso_info[] __ro_after_init = {
> #endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO */
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX_ROBUST_UNLOCK
> +static void vdso_futex_robust_unlock_update_ips(enum vdso_abi abi, struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + unsigned long vdso = (unsigned long) mm->context.vdso;
> + struct futex_mm_data *fd = &mm->futex;
> + uintptr_t success, end;
> +
> + if (abi == VDSO_ABI_AA64) {
> + success = (uintptr_t) VDSO_SYMBOL(vdso, futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_success);
> + end = (uintptr_t) VDSO_SYMBOL(vdso, futex_list64_try_unlock_cs_end);
> +
> + futex_set_vdso_cs_range(fd, 0, vdso, success, end, false);

Both VDSO_SYMBOL() and futex_set_vdso_cs_range() add the vdso base
address to the symbol offsets. The value stored in .start_ip will be
wrong. The fact that futex_set_vdso_cs_range() does the addition looks
like an artifact of it being written for x86 first. IMO its interface
should be changed not to do the addition internally.

> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT_VDSO
> + if (abi == VDSO_ABI_AA32) {
> + success = (uintptr_t) VDSO_SYMBOL(vdso, futex_list32_try_unlock_cs_success);
> + end = (uintptr_t) VDSO_SYMBOL(vdso, futex_list32_try_unlock_cs_end);
> +
> + futex_set_vdso_cs_range(fd, 1, vdso, success, end, true);
> + }
> +#endif
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void vdso_futex_robust_unlock_update_ips(enum vdso_abi abi, struct mm_struct *mm) { }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_FUTEX_ROBUST_UNLOCK */
> +
> static int vdso_mremap(const struct vm_special_mapping *sm,
> struct vm_area_struct *new_vma)
> {

(...)