Adding upstream version 4.19.249.upstream/4.19.249

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 574 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0d4f29bc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,574 @@
+Adding a New System Call
+========================
+
+This document describes what's involved in adding a new system call to the
+Linux kernel, over and above the normal submission advice in
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`.
+
+
+System Call Alternatives
+------------------------
+
+The first thing to consider when adding a new system call is whether one of
+the alternatives might be suitable instead.  Although system calls are the
+most traditional and most obvious interaction points between userspace and the
+kernel, there are other possibilities -- choose what fits best for your
+interface.
+
+ - If the operations involved can be made to look like a filesystem-like
+   object, it may make more sense to create a new filesystem or device.  This
+   also makes it easier to encapsulate the new functionality in a kernel module
+   rather than requiring it to be built into the main kernel.
+
+     - If the new functionality involves operations where the kernel notifies
+       userspace that something has happened, then returning a new file
+       descriptor for the relevant object allows userspace to use
+       ``poll``/``select``/``epoll`` to receive that notification.
+     - However, operations that don't map to
+       :manpage:`read(2)`/:manpage:`write(2)`-like operations
+       have to be implemented as :manpage:`ioctl(2)` requests, which can lead
+       to a somewhat opaque API.
+
+ - If you're just exposing runtime system information, a new node in sysfs
+   (see ``Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt``) or the ``/proc`` filesystem may
+   be more appropriate.  However, access to these mechanisms requires that the
+   relevant filesystem is mounted, which might not always be the case (e.g.
+   in a namespaced/sandboxed/chrooted environment).  Avoid adding any API to
+   debugfs, as this is not considered a 'production' interface to userspace.
+ - If the operation is specific to a particular file or file descriptor, then
+   an additional :manpage:`fcntl(2)` command option may be more appropriate.  However,
+   :manpage:`fcntl(2)` is a multiplexing system call that hides a lot of complexity, so
+   this option is best for when the new function is closely analogous to
+   existing :manpage:`fcntl(2)` functionality, or the new functionality is very simple
+   (for example, getting/setting a simple flag related to a file descriptor).
+ - If the operation is specific to a particular task or process, then an
+   additional :manpage:`prctl(2)` command option may be more appropriate.  As
+   with :manpage:`fcntl(2)`, this system call is a complicated multiplexor so
+   is best reserved for near-analogs of existing ``prctl()`` commands or
+   getting/setting a simple flag related to a process.
+
+
+Designing the API: Planning for Extension
+-----------------------------------------
+
+A new system call forms part of the API of the kernel, and has to be supported
+indefinitely.  As such, it's a very good idea to explicitly discuss the
+interface on the kernel mailing list, and it's important to plan for future
+extensions of the interface.
+
+(The syscall table is littered with historical examples where this wasn't done,
+together with the corresponding follow-up system calls --
+``eventfd``/``eventfd2``, ``dup2``/``dup3``, ``inotify_init``/``inotify_init1``,
+``pipe``/``pipe2``, ``renameat``/``renameat2`` -- so
+learn from the history of the kernel and plan for extensions from the start.)
+
+For simpler system calls that only take a couple of arguments, the preferred
+way to allow for future extensibility is to include a flags argument to the
+system call.  To make sure that userspace programs can safely use flags
+between kernel versions, check whether the flags value holds any unknown
+flags, and reject the system call (with ``EINVAL``) if it does::
+
+    if (flags & ~(THING_FLAG1 | THING_FLAG2 | THING_FLAG3))
+        return -EINVAL;
+
+(If no flags values are used yet, check that the flags argument is zero.)
+
+For more sophisticated system calls that involve a larger number of arguments,
+it's preferred to encapsulate the majority of the arguments into a structure
+that is passed in by pointer.  Such a structure can cope with future extension
+by including a size argument in the structure::
+
+    struct xyzzy_params {
+        u32 size; /* userspace sets p->size = sizeof(struct xyzzy_params) */
+        u32 param_1;
+        u64 param_2;
+        u64 param_3;
+    };
+
+As long as any subsequently added field, say ``param_4``, is designed so that a
+zero value gives the previous behaviour, then this allows both directions of
+version mismatch:
+
+ - To cope with a later userspace program calling an older kernel, the kernel
+   code should check that any memory beyond the size of the structure that it
+   expects is zero (effectively checking that ``param_4 == 0``).
+ - To cope with an older userspace program calling a newer kernel, the kernel
+   code can zero-extend a smaller instance of the structure (effectively
+   setting ``param_4 = 0``).
+
+See :manpage:`perf_event_open(2)` and the ``perf_copy_attr()`` function (in
+``kernel/events/core.c``) for an example of this approach.
+
+
+Designing the API: Other Considerations
+---------------------------------------
+
+If your new system call allows userspace to refer to a kernel object, it
+should use a file descriptor as the handle for that object -- don't invent a
+new type of userspace object handle when the kernel already has mechanisms and
+well-defined semantics for using file descriptors.
+
+If your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call does return a new file descriptor,
+then the flags argument should include a value that is equivalent to setting
+``O_CLOEXEC`` on the new FD.  This makes it possible for userspace to close
+the timing window between ``xyzzy()`` and calling
+``fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC)``, where an unexpected ``fork()`` and
+``execve()`` in another thread could leak a descriptor to
+the exec'ed program. (However, resist the temptation to re-use the actual value
+of the ``O_CLOEXEC`` constant, as it is architecture-specific and is part of a
+numbering space of ``O_*`` flags that is fairly full.)
+
+If your system call returns a new file descriptor, you should also consider
+what it means to use the :manpage:`poll(2)` family of system calls on that file
+descriptor. Making a file descriptor ready for reading or writing is the
+normal way for the kernel to indicate to userspace that an event has
+occurred on the corresponding kernel object.
+
+If your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call involves a filename argument::
+
+    int sys_xyzzy(const char __user *path, ..., unsigned int flags);
+
+you should also consider whether an :manpage:`xyzzyat(2)` version is more appropriate::
+
+    int sys_xyzzyat(int dfd, const char __user *path, ..., unsigned int flags);
+
+This allows more flexibility for how userspace specifies the file in question;
+in particular it allows userspace to request the functionality for an
+already-opened file descriptor using the ``AT_EMPTY_PATH`` flag, effectively
+giving an :manpage:`fxyzzy(3)` operation for free::
+
+ - xyzzyat(AT_FDCWD, path, ..., 0) is equivalent to xyzzy(path,...)
+ - xyzzyat(fd, "", ..., AT_EMPTY_PATH) is equivalent to fxyzzy(fd, ...)
+
+(For more details on the rationale of the \*at() calls, see the
+:manpage:`openat(2)` man page; for an example of AT_EMPTY_PATH, see the
+:manpage:`fstatat(2)` man page.)
+
+If your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call involves a parameter describing an
+offset within a file, make its type ``loff_t`` so that 64-bit offsets can be
+supported even on 32-bit architectures.
+
+If your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call involves privileged functionality,
+it needs to be governed by the appropriate Linux capability bit (checked with
+a call to ``capable()``), as described in the :manpage:`capabilities(7)` man
+page.  Choose an existing capability bit that governs related functionality,
+but try to avoid combining lots of only vaguely related functions together
+under the same bit, as this goes against capabilities' purpose of splitting
+the power of root.  In particular, avoid adding new uses of the already
+overly-general ``CAP_SYS_ADMIN`` capability.
+
+If your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call manipulates a process other than
+the calling process, it should be restricted (using a call to
+``ptrace_may_access()``) so that only a calling process with the same
+permissions as the target process, or with the necessary capabilities, can
+manipulate the target process.
+
+Finally, be aware that some non-x86 architectures have an easier time if
+system call parameters that are explicitly 64-bit fall on odd-numbered
+arguments (i.e. parameter 1, 3, 5), to allow use of contiguous pairs of 32-bit
+registers.  (This concern does not apply if the arguments are part of a
+structure that's passed in by pointer.)
+
+
+Proposing the API
+-----------------
+
+To make new system calls easy to review, it's best to divide up the patchset
+into separate chunks.  These should include at least the following items as
+distinct commits (each of which is described further below):
+
+ - The core implementation of the system call, together with prototypes,
+   generic numbering, Kconfig changes and fallback stub implementation.
+ - Wiring up of the new system call for one particular architecture, usually
+   x86 (including all of x86_64, x86_32 and x32).
+ - A demonstration of the use of the new system call in userspace via a
+   selftest in ``tools/testing/selftests/``.
+ - A draft man-page for the new system call, either as plain text in the
+   cover letter, or as a patch to the (separate) man-pages repository.
+
+New system call proposals, like any change to the kernel's API, should always
+be cc'ed to linux-api@vger.kernel.org.
+
+
+Generic System Call Implementation
+----------------------------------
+
+The main entry point for your new :manpage:`xyzzy(2)` system call will be called
+``sys_xyzzy()``, but you add this entry point with the appropriate
+``SYSCALL_DEFINEn()`` macro rather than explicitly.  The 'n' indicates the
+number of arguments to the system call, and the macro takes the system call name
+followed by the (type, name) pairs for the parameters as arguments.  Using
+this macro allows metadata about the new system call to be made available for
+other tools.
+
+The new entry point also needs a corresponding function prototype, in
+``include/linux/syscalls.h``, marked as asmlinkage to match the way that system
+calls are invoked::
+
+    asmlinkage long sys_xyzzy(...);
+
+Some architectures (e.g. x86) have their own architecture-specific syscall
+tables, but several other architectures share a generic syscall table. Add your
+new system call to the generic list by adding an entry to the list in
+``include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h``::
+
+    #define __NR_xyzzy 292
+    __SYSCALL(__NR_xyzzy, sys_xyzzy)
+
+Also update the __NR_syscalls count to reflect the additional system call, and
+note that if multiple new system calls are added in the same merge window,
+your new syscall number may get adjusted to resolve conflicts.
+
+The file ``kernel/sys_ni.c`` provides a fallback stub implementation of each
+system call, returning ``-ENOSYS``.  Add your new system call here too::
+
+    COND_SYSCALL(xyzzy);
+
+Your new kernel functionality, and the system call that controls it, should
+normally be optional, so add a ``CONFIG`` option (typically to
+``init/Kconfig``) for it. As usual for new ``CONFIG`` options:
+
+ - Include a description of the new functionality and system call controlled
+   by the option.
+ - Make the option depend on EXPERT if it should be hidden from normal users.
+ - Make any new source files implementing the function dependent on the CONFIG
+   option in the Makefile (e.g. ``obj-$(CONFIG_XYZZY_SYSCALL) += xyzzy.c``).
+ - Double check that the kernel still builds with the new CONFIG option turned
+   off.
+
+To summarize, you need a commit that includes:
+
+ - ``CONFIG`` option for the new function, normally in ``init/Kconfig``
+ - ``SYSCALL_DEFINEn(xyzzy, ...)`` for the entry point
+ - corresponding prototype in ``include/linux/syscalls.h``
+ - generic table entry in ``include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h``
+ - fallback stub in ``kernel/sys_ni.c``
+
+
+x86 System Call Implementation
+------------------------------
+
+To wire up your new system call for x86 platforms, you need to update the
+master syscall tables.  Assuming your new system call isn't special in some
+way (see below), this involves a "common" entry (for x86_64 and x32) in
+arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl::
+
+    333   common   xyzzy     sys_xyzzy
+
+and an "i386" entry in ``arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl``::
+
+    380   i386     xyzzy     sys_xyzzy
+
+Again, these numbers are liable to be changed if there are conflicts in the
+relevant merge window.
+
+
+Compatibility System Calls (Generic)
+------------------------------------
+
+For most system calls the same 64-bit implementation can be invoked even when
+the userspace program is itself 32-bit; even if the system call's parameters
+include an explicit pointer, this is handled transparently.
+
+However, there are a couple of situations where a compatibility layer is
+needed to cope with size differences between 32-bit and 64-bit.
+
+The first is if the 64-bit kernel also supports 32-bit userspace programs, and
+so needs to parse areas of (``__user``) memory that could hold either 32-bit or
+64-bit values.  In particular, this is needed whenever a system call argument
+is:
+
+ - a pointer to a pointer
+ - a pointer to a struct containing a pointer (e.g. ``struct iovec __user *``)
+ - a pointer to a varying sized integral type (``time_t``, ``off_t``,
+   ``long``, ...)
+ - a pointer to a struct containing a varying sized integral type.
+
+The second situation that requires a compatibility layer is if one of the
+system call's arguments has a type that is explicitly 64-bit even on a 32-bit
+architecture, for example ``loff_t`` or ``__u64``.  In this case, a value that
+arrives at a 64-bit kernel from a 32-bit application will be split into two
+32-bit values, which then need to be re-assembled in the compatibility layer.
+
+(Note that a system call argument that's a pointer to an explicit 64-bit type
+does **not** need a compatibility layer; for example, :manpage:`splice(2)`'s arguments of
+type ``loff_t __user *`` do not trigger the need for a ``compat_`` system call.)
+
+The compatibility version of the system call is called ``compat_sys_xyzzy()``,
+and is added with the ``COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINEn()`` macro, analogously to
+SYSCALL_DEFINEn.  This version of the implementation runs as part of a 64-bit
+kernel, but expects to receive 32-bit parameter values and does whatever is
+needed to deal with them.  (Typically, the ``compat_sys_`` version converts the
+values to 64-bit versions and either calls on to the ``sys_`` version, or both of
+them call a common inner implementation function.)
+
+The compat entry point also needs a corresponding function prototype, in
+``include/linux/compat.h``, marked as asmlinkage to match the way that system
+calls are invoked::
+
+    asmlinkage long compat_sys_xyzzy(...);
+
+If the system call involves a structure that is laid out differently on 32-bit
+and 64-bit systems, say ``struct xyzzy_args``, then the include/linux/compat.h
+header file should also include a compat version of the structure (``struct
+compat_xyzzy_args``) where each variable-size field has the appropriate
+``compat_`` type that corresponds to the type in ``struct xyzzy_args``.  The
+``compat_sys_xyzzy()`` routine can then use this ``compat_`` structure to
+parse the arguments from a 32-bit invocation.
+
+For example, if there are fields::
+
+    struct xyzzy_args {
+        const char __user *ptr;
+        __kernel_long_t varying_val;
+        u64 fixed_val;
+        /* ... */
+    };
+
+in struct xyzzy_args, then struct compat_xyzzy_args would have::
+
+    struct compat_xyzzy_args {
+        compat_uptr_t ptr;
+        compat_long_t varying_val;
+        u64 fixed_val;
+        /* ... */
+    };
+
+The generic system call list also needs adjusting to allow for the compat
+version; the entry in ``include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h`` should use
+``__SC_COMP`` rather than ``__SYSCALL``::
+
+    #define __NR_xyzzy 292
+    __SC_COMP(__NR_xyzzy, sys_xyzzy, compat_sys_xyzzy)
+
+To summarize, you need:
+
+ - a ``COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINEn(xyzzy, ...)`` for the compat entry point
+ - corresponding prototype in ``include/linux/compat.h``
+ - (if needed) 32-bit mapping struct in ``include/linux/compat.h``
+ - instance of ``__SC_COMP`` not ``__SYSCALL`` in
+   ``include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h``
+
+
+Compatibility System Calls (x86)
+--------------------------------
+
+To wire up the x86 architecture of a system call with a compatibility version,
+the entries in the syscall tables need to be adjusted.
+
+First, the entry in ``arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl`` gets an extra
+column to indicate that a 32-bit userspace program running on a 64-bit kernel
+should hit the compat entry point::
+
+    380   i386     xyzzy     sys_xyzzy    __ia32_compat_sys_xyzzy
+
+Second, you need to figure out what should happen for the x32 ABI version of
+the new system call.  There's a choice here: the layout of the arguments
+should either match the 64-bit version or the 32-bit version.
+
+If there's a pointer-to-a-pointer involved, the decision is easy: x32 is
+ILP32, so the layout should match the 32-bit version, and the entry in
+``arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl`` is split so that x32 programs hit
+the compatibility wrapper::
+
+    333   64       xyzzy     sys_xyzzy
+    ...
+    555   x32      xyzzy     __x32_compat_sys_xyzzy
+
+If no pointers are involved, then it is preferable to re-use the 64-bit system
+call for the x32 ABI (and consequently the entry in
+arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl is unchanged).
+
+In either case, you should check that the types involved in your argument
+layout do indeed map exactly from x32 (-mx32) to either the 32-bit (-m32) or
+64-bit (-m64) equivalents.
+
+
+System Calls Returning Elsewhere
+--------------------------------
+
+For most system calls, once the system call is complete the user program
+continues exactly where it left off -- at the next instruction, with the
+stack the same and most of the registers the same as before the system call,
+and with the same virtual memory space.
+
+However, a few system calls do things differently.  They might return to a
+different location (``rt_sigreturn``) or change the memory space
+(``fork``/``vfork``/``clone``) or even architecture (``execve``/``execveat``)
+of the program.
+
+To allow for this, the kernel implementation of the system call may need to
+save and restore additional registers to the kernel stack, allowing complete
+control of where and how execution continues after the system call.
+
+This is arch-specific, but typically involves defining assembly entry points
+that save/restore additional registers and invoke the real system call entry
+point.
+
+For x86_64, this is implemented as a ``stub_xyzzy`` entry point in
+``arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S``, and the entry in the syscall table
+(``arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl``) is adjusted to match::
+
+    333   common   xyzzy     stub_xyzzy
+
+The equivalent for 32-bit programs running on a 64-bit kernel is normally
+called ``stub32_xyzzy`` and implemented in ``arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S``,
+with the corresponding syscall table adjustment in
+``arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl``::
+
+    380   i386     xyzzy     sys_xyzzy    stub32_xyzzy
+
+If the system call needs a compatibility layer (as in the previous section)
+then the ``stub32_`` version needs to call on to the ``compat_sys_`` version
+of the system call rather than the native 64-bit version.  Also, if the x32 ABI
+implementation is not common with the x86_64 version, then its syscall
+table will also need to invoke a stub that calls on to the ``compat_sys_``
+version.
+
+For completeness, it's also nice to set up a mapping so that user-mode Linux
+still works -- its syscall table will reference stub_xyzzy, but the UML build
+doesn't include ``arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S`` implementation (because UML
+simulates registers etc).  Fixing this is as simple as adding a #define to
+``arch/x86/um/sys_call_table_64.c``::
+
+    #define stub_xyzzy sys_xyzzy
+
+
+Other Details
+-------------
+
+Most of the kernel treats system calls in a generic way, but there is the
+occasional exception that may need updating for your particular system call.
+
+The audit subsystem is one such special case; it includes (arch-specific)
+functions that classify some special types of system call -- specifically
+file open (``open``/``openat``), program execution (``execve``/``exeveat``) or
+socket multiplexor (``socketcall``) operations. If your new system call is
+analogous to one of these, then the audit system should be updated.
+
+More generally, if there is an existing system call that is analogous to your
+new system call, it's worth doing a kernel-wide grep for the existing system
+call to check there are no other special cases.
+
+
+Testing
+-------
+
+A new system call should obviously be tested; it is also useful to provide
+reviewers with a demonstration of how user space programs will use the system
+call.  A good way to combine these aims is to include a simple self-test
+program in a new directory under ``tools/testing/selftests/``.
+
+For a new system call, there will obviously be no libc wrapper function and so
+the test will need to invoke it using ``syscall()``; also, if the system call
+involves a new userspace-visible structure, the corresponding header will need
+to be installed to compile the test.
+
+Make sure the selftest runs successfully on all supported architectures.  For
+example, check that it works when compiled as an x86_64 (-m64), x86_32 (-m32)
+and x32 (-mx32) ABI program.
+
+For more extensive and thorough testing of new functionality, you should also
+consider adding tests to the Linux Test Project, or to the xfstests project
+for filesystem-related changes.
+
+ - https://linux-test-project.github.io/
+ - git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git
+
+
+Man Page
+--------
+
+All new system calls should come with a complete man page, ideally using groff
+markup, but plain text will do.  If groff is used, it's helpful to include a
+pre-rendered ASCII version of the man page in the cover email for the
+patchset, for the convenience of reviewers.
+
+The man page should be cc'ed to linux-man@vger.kernel.org
+For more details, see https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/patches.html
+
+
+Do not call System Calls in the Kernel
+--------------------------------------
+
+System calls are, as stated above, interaction points between userspace and
+the kernel.  Therefore, system call functions such as ``sys_xyzzy()`` or
+``compat_sys_xyzzy()`` should only be called from userspace via the syscall
+table, but not from elsewhere in the kernel.  If the syscall functionality is
+useful to be used within the kernel, needs to be shared between an old and a
+new syscall, or needs to be shared between a syscall and its compatibility
+variant, it should be implemented by means of a "helper" function (such as
+``kern_xyzzy()``).  This kernel function may then be called within the
+syscall stub (``sys_xyzzy()``), the compatibility syscall stub
+(``compat_sys_xyzzy()``), and/or other kernel code.
+
+At least on 64-bit x86, it will be a hard requirement from v4.17 onwards to not
+call system call functions in the kernel.  It uses a different calling
+convention for system calls where ``struct pt_regs`` is decoded on-the-fly in a
+syscall wrapper which then hands processing over to the actual syscall function.
+This means that only those parameters which are actually needed for a specific
+syscall are passed on during syscall entry, instead of filling in six CPU
+registers with random user space content all the time (which may cause serious
+trouble down the call chain).
+
+Moreover, rules on how data may be accessed may differ between kernel data and
+user data.  This is another reason why calling ``sys_xyzzy()`` is generally a
+bad idea.
+
+Exceptions to this rule are only allowed in architecture-specific overrides,
+architecture-specific compatibility wrappers, or other code in arch/.
+
+
+References and Sources
+----------------------
+
+ - LWN article from Michael Kerrisk on use of flags argument in system calls:
+   https://lwn.net/Articles/585415/
+ - LWN article from Michael Kerrisk on how to handle unknown flags in a system
+   call: https://lwn.net/Articles/588444/
+ - LWN article from Jake Edge describing constraints on 64-bit system call
+   arguments: https://lwn.net/Articles/311630/
+ - Pair of LWN articles from David Drysdale that describe the system call
+   implementation paths in detail for v3.14:
+
+    - https://lwn.net/Articles/604287/
+    - https://lwn.net/Articles/604515/
+
+ - Architecture-specific requirements for system calls are discussed in the
+   :manpage:`syscall(2)` man-page:
+   http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/syscall.2.html#NOTES
+ - Collated emails from Linus Torvalds discussing the problems with ``ioctl()``:
+   http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/ioctl.html
+ - "How to not invent kernel interfaces", Arnd Bergmann,
+   http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2007/2007/papers/Bergmann.pdf
+ - LWN article from Michael Kerrisk on avoiding new uses of CAP_SYS_ADMIN:
+   https://lwn.net/Articles/486306/
+ - Recommendation from Andrew Morton that all related information for a new
+   system call should come in the same email thread:
+   https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/24/641
+ - Recommendation from Michael Kerrisk that a new system call should come with
+   a man page: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/13/309
+ - Suggestion from Thomas Gleixner that x86 wire-up should be in a separate
+   commit: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/254
+ - Suggestion from Greg Kroah-Hartman that it's good for new system calls to
+   come with a man-page & selftest: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/19/710
+ - Discussion from Michael Kerrisk of new system call vs. :manpage:`prctl(2)` extension:
+   https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/3/411
+ - Suggestion from Ingo Molnar that system calls that involve multiple
+   arguments should encapsulate those arguments in a struct, which includes a
+   size field for future extensibility: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/30/117
+ - Numbering oddities arising from (re-)use of O_* numbering space flags:
+
+    - commit 75069f2b5bfb ("vfs: renumber FMODE_NONOTIFY and add to uniqueness
+      check")
+    - commit 12ed2e36c98a ("fanotify: FMODE_NONOTIFY and __O_SYNC in sparc
+      conflict")
+    - commit bb458c644a59 ("Safer ABI for O_TMPFILE")
+
+ - Discussion from Matthew Wilcox about restrictions on 64-bit arguments:
+   https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/12/187
+ - Recommendation from Greg Kroah-Hartman that unknown flags should be
+   policed: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/17/577
+ - Recommendation from Linus Torvalds that x32 system calls should prefer
+   compatibility with 64-bit versions rather than 32-bit versions:
+   https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/31/244