From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: Lower the maximum allocation for the SVE ptrace regset Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:09:51 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZcOBH7ip/KMhLYGO@finisterre.sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <ZcN2XMkvqxNnsz5K@e133380.arm.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --] On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:23:56PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:41:47PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:11:59PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > > If the kernel is now juggling two #defines for the maximum vector size, > > > this feels like it may seed bitrot... > > Ideally we'd just not have the existing define externally but it's there > > and it's been used. > To clarify, is this intended as a temporary band-aid against silly > behaviour while a cleaner solution is found, or a permanent limitation? Ideally we'd just make everything dynamic, other than the regset issue and the bitmasks used for VL enumeration we're there already. Making the bitmasks dynamically sized is more painful but are also doing enumeration that userspace doesn't need to do. > We'd need to change various things if the architectural max VL actually > grew, so no forward-portability is lost immediately if the kernel > adopts 16 internally, but I'm still a little concerned that people may > poke about in the kernel code as a reference and this will muddy the > waters regarding how to do the right thing in userspace (I know people > shouldn't, but...) I think if we fix the ptrace regset issue we're doing a good enough job of just using fully dynamic sizing with no limits other than what's been enumerated there. We could possibly deal with the enumberation code by changing it to use ZCR/SMCR_ELx_LEN_ based defines so that it's obviously coming from what we can possibly write to the register but it's a bit less clear how to do that neatly. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sve: Lower the maximum allocation for the SVE ptrace regset Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 13:09:51 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <ZcOBH7ip/KMhLYGO@finisterre.sirena.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <ZcN2XMkvqxNnsz5K@e133380.arm.com> [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --] On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:23:56PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:41:47PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:11:59PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > > If the kernel is now juggling two #defines for the maximum vector size, > > > this feels like it may seed bitrot... > > Ideally we'd just not have the existing define externally but it's there > > and it's been used. > To clarify, is this intended as a temporary band-aid against silly > behaviour while a cleaner solution is found, or a permanent limitation? Ideally we'd just make everything dynamic, other than the regset issue and the bitmasks used for VL enumeration we're there already. Making the bitmasks dynamically sized is more painful but are also doing enumeration that userspace doesn't need to do. > We'd need to change various things if the architectural max VL actually > grew, so no forward-portability is lost immediately if the kernel > adopts 16 internally, but I'm still a little concerned that people may > poke about in the kernel code as a reference and this will muddy the > waters regarding how to do the right thing in userspace (I know people > shouldn't, but...) I think if we fix the ptrace regset issue we're doing a good enough job of just using fully dynamic sizing with no limits other than what's been enumerated there. We could possibly deal with the enumberation code by changing it to use ZCR/SMCR_ELx_LEN_ based defines so that it's obviously coming from what we can possibly write to the register but it's a bit less clear how to do that neatly. [-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --] _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-07 13:09 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2024-02-03 12:16 [PATCH] arm64/sve: Lower the maximum allocation for the SVE ptrace regset Mark Brown 2024-02-03 12:16 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-05 17:02 ` Doug Anderson 2024-02-05 17:02 ` Doug Anderson 2024-02-09 17:11 ` Will Deacon 2024-02-09 17:11 ` Will Deacon 2024-02-09 17:40 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-09 17:40 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-05 17:11 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-05 17:11 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-05 17:41 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-05 17:41 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-07 12:23 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-07 12:23 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-07 13:09 ` Mark Brown [this message] 2024-02-07 13:09 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-07 13:51 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-07 13:51 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-07 15:07 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-07 15:07 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-12 16:50 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-12 16:50 ` Dave Martin 2024-02-12 17:09 ` Mark Brown 2024-02-12 17:09 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=ZcOBH7ip/KMhLYGO@finisterre.sirena.org.uk \ --to=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=dianders@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=oleg@redhat.com \ --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.