Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] landlock: Serialize TSYNC thread restriction

["Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 10:46:39AM +0800, Ding Yihan wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you Justin for catching the test failure and the thorough
> investigation! And thanks Günther and Tingmao for diving into the
> syscall restart mechanics.
> 
> I've evaluated both the `while` loop approach with `task_work_run()`
> and the `restart_syscall()` approach. I strongly lean towards using
> `restart_syscall()` as suggested by Tingmao. 
> 
> As Günther pointed out earlier, executing `task_work_run()` directly
> deep inside the syscall context can be risky. Task works often assume
> they are running at the kernel-user boundary with a specific state.
> Using `restart_syscall()` safely bounces us to that boundary, processes
> the works cleanly, and restarts the syscall via standard mechanisms.

Agreed.  I also like the restart_syscall() solution for its simplicity
and use of a standard mechanism.

(This code path is very unlikely (and probably unintended by the
userspace programmer), so we need to protect against deadlock, but
it's not a performance critical path by far.  By using the more
standard restart_syscall(), we have to worry about fewer corner cases
(e.g. what assumptions are made by task_works about the context they
get executed in).  I think this robustness trumps performance tuning
in this case.)


> After some selftests,I will prepare the v4 patch series using `restart_syscall()`.
> I will also ensure all comments are properly wrapped to 80 columns as requested
> by Mickaël, and make sure to include the proper Reported-by and
> Suggested-by tags for everyone's excellent input here.
> 
> Expect the v4 series shortly. Thanks again for the great collaboration!

Thanks, I'm looking forward to the revised patch. I agree with this plan. :)

–Günther