Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.txt
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:03:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5963d144-be9b-78d8-9130-ef92bc66b1fd@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8e3c9537-de10-0d0d-f5bb-c33bde92443f@arm.com>


On 13/06/2019 13:28, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 13/06/2019 12:16, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> Hi Szabolcs,
>>
>> thank you for your review.
>>
>> On 13/06/2019 11:14, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2019 10:20, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> Hi Szabolcs,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:30:34PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>>> On 12/06/2019 15:21, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>>>> +2. ARM64 Tagged Address ABI
>>>>>> +---------------------------
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +From the kernel syscall interface prospective, we define, for the purposes
>>>>>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> perspective
>>>>>
>>>>>> +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"
>>>>>
>>>>> this does not make it clear if MAP_FIXED or other flags are valid
>>>>> (there are many map flags i don't know, but at least fixed should work
>>>>> and stack/growsdown. i'd expect anything that's not incompatible with
>>>>> private|anon to work).
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, this document tries to define the memory ranges from
>>>> where tagged addresses can be passed into the kernel in the context
>>>> of TBI only (not MTE); that is for hwasan support. FIXED or GROWSDOWN
>>>> should not affect this.
>>>
>>> yes, so either the text should list MAP_* flags that don't affect
>>> the pointer tagging semantics or specify private|anon mapping
>>> with different wording.
>>>
>>
>> Good point. Could you please propose a wording that would be suitable for this case?
> 
> i don't know all the MAP_ magic, but i think it's enough to change
> the "flags =" to
> 
> * flags have MAP_PRIVATE and MAP_ANONYMOUS set or
> * flags have MAP_PRIVATE set and the file descriptor refers to...
> 
> 

Fine by me.  I will add it the next iterations.

>>>>>> +  - a mapping below sbrk(0) done by the process itself
>>>>>
>>>>> doesn't the mmap rule cover this?
>>>>
>>>> IIUC it doesn't cover it as that's memory mapped by the kernel
>>>> automatically on access vs a pointer returned by mmap(). The statement
>>>> above talks about how the address is obtained by the user.
>>>
>>> ok i read 'mapping below sbrk' as an mmap (possibly MAP_FIXED)
>>> that happens to be below the heap area.
>>>
>>> i think "below sbrk(0)" is not the best term to use: there
>>> may be address range below the heap area that can be mmapped
>>> and thus below sbrk(0) and sbrk is a posix api not a linux
>>> syscall, the libc can implement it with mmap or whatever.
>>>
>>> i'm not sure what the right term for 'heap area' is
>>> (the address range between syscall(__NR_brk,0) at
>>> program startup and its current value?)
>>>
>>
>> I used sbrk(0) with the meaning of "end of the process's data segment" not
>> implying that this is a syscall, but just as a useful way to identify the mapping.
>> I agree that it is a posix function implemented by libc but when it is used with
>> 0 finds the current location of the program break, which can be changed by brk()
>> and depending on the new address passed to this syscall can have the effect of
>> allocating or deallocating memory.
>>
>> Will changing sbrk(0) with "end of the process's data segment" make it more clear?
> 
> i don't understand what's the relevance of the *end*
> of the data segment.
> 
> i'd expect the text to say something about the address
> range of the data segment.
> 
> i can do
> 
> mmap((void*)65536, 65536, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_FIXED|MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANON, -1, 0);
> 
> and it will be below the end of the data segment.
>

As far as I understand the data segment "lives" below the program break, hence
it is a way of describing the range from which the user can obtain a valid
tagged pointer.

Said that, I am not really sure on how do you want me to document this (my aim
is for this to be clear to the userspace developers). Could you please propose
something?

>>
>> I will add what you are suggesting about the heap area.
>>

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply index

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-12 11:43 [PATCH v17 00/15] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 01/15] arm64: untag user pointers in access_ok and __uaccess_mask_ptr Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:26   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 02/15] lib, arm64: untag user pointers in strn*_user Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:28   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 03/15] arm64: Introduce prctl() options to control the tagged user addresses ABI Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:30   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 14:55   ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 11:02   ` Dave Martin
2019-06-13 15:26     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-14  5:13       ` Kees Cook
2019-06-18  9:18         ` Dave Martin
2019-06-13 11:16   ` Dave Martin
2019-06-13 15:35     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 15:45       ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-13 15:57         ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 16:15           ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-17 13:56   ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-17 16:56     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-17 16:57     ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-06-17 17:18       ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-17 21:59         ` Evgenii Stepanov
2019-06-19 14:45   ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-19 15:29     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 04/15] mm, arm64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:31   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-19 15:55   ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-19 16:46     ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-24 14:22       ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 05/15] mm, arm64: untag user pointers in mm/gup.c Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:33   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-19 16:41   ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 06/15] mm, arm64: untag user pointers in get_vaddr_frames Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:34   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-19 16:48   ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 07/15] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in copy_mount_options Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:35   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-19 20:01   ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 08/15] userfaultfd, arm64: untag user pointers Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:40   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 09/15] drm/amdgpu, " Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 10/15] drm/radeon, arm64: untag user pointers in radeon_gem_userptr_ioctl Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 11/15] IB/mlx4, arm64: untag user pointers in mlx4_get_umem_mr Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 12/15] media/v4l2-core, arm64: untag user pointers in videobuf_dma_contig_user_get Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-19 20:05   ` Khalid Aziz
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 13/15] tee/shm, arm64: untag user pointers in tee_shm_register Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 14/15] vfio/type1, arm64: untag user pointers in vaddr_get_pfn Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:41   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 15:58   ` Auger Eric
2019-06-12 11:43 ` [PATCH v17 15/15] selftests, arm64: add a selftest for passing tagged pointers to kernel Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 12:30   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-12 15:00     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-19 14:42       ` Andrey Konovalov
2019-06-12 14:21 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] arm64 relaxed ABI Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 14:21   ` [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.txt Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 15:35     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 10:15       ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-13 11:37         ` Dave Martin
2019-06-13 12:28           ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 13:23             ` Dave Martin
2019-06-13 15:39               ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-12 16:30     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-13  9:20       ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 10:14         ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-13 11:16           ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-13 12:28             ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-13 14:03               ` Vincenzo Frascino [this message]
2019-06-13 15:32                 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-13 15:35                   ` Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 14:21   ` [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Relax Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.txt Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-12 15:56     ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-12 16:37     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-13 15:51 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] arm64 relaxed ABI Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-13 15:51   ` [PATCH v5 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.txt Vincenzo Frascino
2019-06-18 11:02     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2019-06-18 13:13     ` Kevin Brodsky
2019-06-21 15:16       ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-13 15:51   ` [PATCH v5 2/2] arm64: Relax Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.txt Vincenzo Frascino

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=5963d144-be9b-78d8-9130-ef92bc66b1fd@arm.com \
    --to=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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: link

Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0 linux-arm-kernel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1 linux-arm-kernel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-kernel linux-arm-kernel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel \
		linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org infradead-linux-arm-kernel@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-kernel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox