On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:42:01PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Just like for arm64, and x86_64 the s390 part is just adding the new
> > vm flag to the _install_mappings() call in vdso code. Otherwise there
> > is nothing to be considered.
>
> No, they are not just adding a flag, they are enabling the sealing of
> system mappings, if a user chooses to make use of it, which already breaks
> a number of useland applications that rely on remapping these.
>
> if the architecture code ever needs to unmap/remap these, then this breaks
> your architecture.
>
> I think it would be sensible to clearly indicate that enabling this feature
> does not break the s390 architecture and you've confirmed that by checking
> the code and ensuring that nowhere does it rely upon doing this.
>
> Likely that's the case, but I'd suggest you ought to make sure...
>
> x86-64 and arm64 were checked for this and confirmed to not ever need this.
>
> This is why we're restricting by architecture.
Ok, I was assuming more that whoever enables that config option knows
what he or she is doing. However as far as I know there is no s390
user space which relies on remapping vdso mappings.
When it comes to unmapping vdso: this would break user space since
commit df29a7440c4b ("s390/signal: switch to using vdso for sigreturn
and syscall restart") - there haven't been any reports.
