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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 8F627C31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4010520679 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:03:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4010520679 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CF4DC6B026A; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CA4296B026B; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B6F328E0001; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD4A6B026A for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id n25so1786910wmc.7 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc :references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UVX8Y2nZSU8wr6vWWKjaM2uzfMrT8CwvBAXqnr/WTgc=; b=iTIqjWMHi+lVz+R0Ne5t6Ed7JqkFryhO6jSZGqBdT/VbiV2Z5/mDUtZ161niT1hBJU dRZ+abBHiv15j3sJuUy69y1DM8o6FKb8FCP9pXPduh1lb13DPO7NeB+e6LKOtIwiDH76 f7vZM31TTK1lz54TT41J5crxtabGfI6r8VML9J8mVSkYbsYL2JvxNLx5Fi1SonXU4tDF Kw1CetXPTGEtNUMBf5voHYlDHUQ4tELhRCReDcCnSw6hZGHxCqoSxA8yUGS4Hmn2wK+H wZ0TqPGBosfh2L9sVBlQqzhz95Mt0N/qPl7fWQYoFLNIUxZ9ddXSpY/qlzIsBG639Pn5 gi3w== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of vincenzo.frascino@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUGho6FCTaICSd1boawVDNwuJgiQltHIm2Hnue2ZwF6EnppKGqG yGUYiyq/L9ePU1uvSml/mu0euabopSo/NYTOrn8KEqWqQ5lx2664gnPAOVQX3SEnqNkBWa1ybQK kgCeJNDEr4FgJLDGYgrwRHPfCh+ONyLgzzbbbaR8OWiWy75rPpZF9dJ90g05ofnkl3w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:814d:: with SMTP id 71mr11042058wrm.50.1560434597771; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxcswOxERu72l00Zf683Ohmra8C66UTLHwzwV7zXHYUAzur7x8sVScJPpD6jVPj4/k97d04 X-Received: by 2002:adf:814d:: with SMTP id 71mr11041983wrm.50.1560434596971; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1560434596; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Lzk4QxdkR5QunzwwvBg1BF5DCcUnAziaFqO9jry8+POv7kHsSUedif6/+8n9cTmRbx 1CCI4jfAgrOFfooQFwygZh3dmBBJwZLNY/5gHSU/XAN3h0ediycuPkHeVB/ImOOV6knk zA85qg9sf1DzjGwJYmgn5Y3tjtcvw5dnr9M0ZLHGFarzQWovFdQfAV24vMrayPsa4GRd PMiOx/uqw75dK0nzX2V/1RkHzDGOrCfT5IZQCma4Eg3UC0ciOlzFVpFy/uEjZDrHpwq1 h8+61EbyaJnuWZnlWCwFmDXuEHepdGQkujuFDnMUYgqBGfJjFGbHZTElWzk9K4FARYFM NI+Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=UVX8Y2nZSU8wr6vWWKjaM2uzfMrT8CwvBAXqnr/WTgc=; b=oySg7aYGC7MqZIATf/3NjJwg65Ipx0hrNqogyVceMAa7K2XDHgAQ5P1CC9TDby9rLx WTRg7DIBWk+Rx7yOzFWfBxbEv1SjRstUKf94V02y/MRfTSR+ou3pEuQb2R+9MnaBElV2 FSRuqmqV0ELdPiBw0D/U4cOwpOjDl25TeZwfp8HOtAkfX3yy4aihfDKNq0zS8wfRGf4i amuaahAJ9ehHrtw8suzJRua3fePO4i0pE2quuCjtTH572SBWZM8iTV8+ksBDTsqjlGZU UWJPwv8jBMXAIbHF7PYOWLFuFYS3mWTFJXjgN68bJVHV5a9xjU0o32DtlZRKxzRBtMGD D7Rg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of vincenzo.frascino@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.110.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h32si2511419edb.97.2019.06.13.07.03.16 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of vincenzo.frascino@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=217.140.110.172; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of vincenzo.frascino@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com 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 Cc: nd , "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" , Will Deacon , Andrey Konovalov , Alexander Viro 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-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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