From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30036B7A40 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id b21so246840ioj.8 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 04:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id b16sor119186ion.108.2018.12.06.04.44.35 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 06 Dec 2018 04:44:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181129181650.GG22027@arrakis.emea.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20181129181650.GG22027@arrakis.emea.arm.com> From: Andrey Konovalov Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Mark Rutland , Kate Stewart , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , Will Deacon , Kostya Serebryany , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Chintan Pandya , Shuah Khan , Ingo Molnar , linux-arch , Jacob Bramley , Dmitry Vyukov , Evgenii Stepanov , Kees Cook , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Linux ARM , Linux Memory Management List , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , Luc Van Oostenryck , Lee Smith , Andrew Morton , Robin Murphy , "Kirill A. Shutemov" On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:16 PM Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Hi Andrey, > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:48:10PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > Changes in v8: > > > - Rebased onto 65102238 (4.20-rc1). > > > - Added a note to the cover letter on why syscall wrappers/shims that untag > > > user pointers won't work. > > > - Added a note to the cover letter that this patchset has been merged into > > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree. > > > - Documentation fixes, in particular added a list of syscalls that don't > > > support tagged user pointers. > > > > I've changed the documentation to be more specific, please take a look. > > > > I haven't done anything about adding a way for the user to find out > > that the kernel supports this ABI extension. I don't know what would > > the the preferred way to do this, and we haven't received any comments > > on that from anybody else. Probing "on some innocuous syscall > > currently returning -EFAULT on tagged pointer arguments" works though, > > as you mentioned. > > We've had some internal discussions and also talked to some people at > Plumbers. I think the best option is to introduce an AT_FLAGS bit to > describe the ABI relaxation on tagged pointers. Vincenzo is going to > propose a patch on top of this series. So should I wait for a patch from Vincenzo before posting v9 or post it as is? Or try to develop this patch myself? > > > As mentioned in the cover letter, this patchset has been merged into > > the Pixel 2 kernel tree. > > I just hope it's not enabled on production kernels, it would introduce > a user ABI that may differ from what ends up upstream. > > -- > Catalin