From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1FAC31E49 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 869A420679 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="FEk4BjUZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 869A420679 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=FwntI4J98VrbiuPWtzI+8BjUDaxDKmatY0LjhwOKssg=; b=FEk4BjUZrWjQyl waYVKyviD+6V9XBYyp+nTjgEp/XdpNXBxRwfeetYOOSt00dVwGxk4ocSXGxLQMIxn7qNDbp740t5w x7l+FKFwm8ke30C3O/B6sc6U55rDDvYdUpd24UQ7Rl7V+PxPCFJffPVB5y9Bj8ADQ/YfFs+afc7LK 5tF9Uat6shocGAcY7cwevvathoXoLj9nqdgCeKr3dZxo/zjz9Gx6D9WDr0sMwydxfwDDzCyp3zPB9 aYiErGxrWQFrwAjsUQizWWY5sqWktZ7Nr7E4ZrCITSz6kA3ZI5x/xUN0zpPjUuX/Hbb5UZiu/bQGB VuoTQUIU4UO1pmT3Qn2g==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hbQJz-0001a9-Ik; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:19 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hbQJw-0001Ze-A4 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:17 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852BC3EF; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.72] (e119884-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.72]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1320D3F718; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.txt To: Szabolcs Nagy , Catalin Marinas References: <20190612142111.28161-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20190612142111.28161-2-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20190613092054.GO28951@C02TF0J2HF1T.local> <6ebbda37-5dd9-d0d5-d9cb-286c7a5b7f8e@arm.com> <8e3c9537-de10-0d0d-f5bb-c33bde92443f@arm.com> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: <5963d144-be9b-78d8-9130-ef92bc66b1fd@arm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:03:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8e3c9537-de10-0d0d-f5bb-c33bde92443f@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20190613_070316_443376_53C86694 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 25.36 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Andrey Konovalov , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Alexander Viro , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , nd , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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