Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/elf_at_flags.txt

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
Cc: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
	Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
	Graeme Barnes <Graeme.Barnes@arm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
	Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>, Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/elf_at_flags.txt
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:50:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190403165031.GE34351@arrakis.emea.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <859341c2-b352-e914-312a-d3de652495b6@arm.com>

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:52:49PM +0000, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 18/03/2019 16:35, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > +2. Features exposed via AT_FLAGS
> > +--------------------------------
> > +
> > +bit[0]: ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI
> > +
> > +    On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been always enabled on the arm64
> > +    kernel, hence the userspace (EL0) is allowed to set a non-zero value
> > +    in the top byte but the resulting pointers are not allowed at the
> > +    user-kernel syscall ABI boundary.
> > +    When bit[0] is set to 1 the kernel is advertising to the userspace
> > +    that a relaxed ABI is supported hence this type of pointers are now
> > +    allowed to be passed to the syscalls, when these pointers are in
> > +    memory ranges privately owned by a process and obtained by the
> > +    process in accordance with the definition of "valid tagged pointer"
> > +    in paragraph 3.
> > +    In these cases the tag is preserved as the pointer goes through the
> > +    kernel. Only when the kernel needs to check if a pointer is coming
> > +    from userspace an untag operation is required.
> 
> I would leave this last sentence out, because:
> 1. It is an implementation detail that doesn't impact this user ABI.
> 2. It is not entirely accurate: untagging the pointer may be needed for
> various kinds of address lookup (like finding the corresponding VMA), at
> which point the kernel usually already knows it is a userspace pointer.

I fully agree, the above paragraph should not be part of the user ABI
document.

> > +3. ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI
> > +-----------------------------
> > +
> > +From the kernel syscall interface prospective, we define, for the purposes
> > +of this document, a "valid tagged pointer" as a pointer that either it has
> > +a zero value set in the top byte or it has a non-zero value, it is in memory
> > +ranges privately owned by a userspace process and it is obtained in one of
> > +the following ways:
> > +  - mmap() done by the process itself, where either:
> > +    * flags = MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS
> > +    * flags = MAP_PRIVATE and the file descriptor refers to a regular
> > +      file or "/dev/zero"
> > +  - a mapping below sbrk(0) done by the process itself
> 
> I don't think that's very clear, this doesn't say how the mapping is
> obtained. Maybe "a mapping obtained by the process using brk() or sbrk()"?

I think what we mean here is anything in the "[heap]" section as per
/proc/*/maps (in the kernel this would be start_brk to brk).

> > +  - any memory mapped by the kernel in the process's address space during
> > +    creation and following the restrictions presented above (i.e. data, bss,
> > +    stack).
> 
> With the rules above, the code section is included as well. Replacing "i.e."
> with "e.g." would avoid having to list every single section (which is
> probably not a good idea anyway).

We could mention [stack] explicitly as that's documented in the
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt and it's likely considered ABI
already.

The code section is MAP_PRIVATE, and can be done by the dynamic loader
(user process), so it falls under the mmap() rules listed above. I guess
we could simply drop "done by the process itself" here and allow
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS or MAP_PRIVATE of regular file. This would
cover the [heap] and [stack] and we won't have to debate the brk() case
at all.

We probably mention somewhere (or we should in the tagged pointers doc)
that we don't support tagged PC.

-- 
Catalin