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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 B3A58C28CC2 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9717E23BF1 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726610AbfE2PSt (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 11:18:49 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48042 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725936AbfE2PSt (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 11:18:49 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CC8341; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e103592.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9C163F5AF; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 16:18:40 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Mark Rutland , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christian Koenig , Szabolcs Nagy , Will Deacon , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Lee Smith , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Vincenzo Frascino , Jacob Bramley , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Evgeniy Stepanov , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Andrey Konovalov , Kevin Brodsky , Alex Williamson , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Dmitry Vyukov , Kostya Serebryany , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Yishai Hadas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Wiklander , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Alexander Deucher , Andrew Murray , Andrew Morton , Robin Murphy , Felix Kuehling , Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 05/17] arms64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls Message-ID: <20190529151839.GF28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <00eb4c63fefc054e2c8d626e8fedfca11d7c2600.1557160186.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <20190527143719.GA59948@MBP.local> <20190528145411.GA709@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20190528154057.GD32006@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190528155644.GD28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190528163400.GE32006@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190529124224.GE28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190529132341.27t3knoxpb7t7y3g@mbp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:23:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:34:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:40:58PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > My thoughts on allowing tags (quick look): > > > > > > > > > > brk - no > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > mlock, mlock2, munlock - yes > > > > > mmap - no (we may change this with MTE but not for TBI) > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > mprotect - yes > > > > > > > > I haven't following this discussion closely... what's the rationale for > > > > the inconsistencies here (feel free to refer me back to the discussion > > > > if it's elsewhere). > > > > > > _My_ rationale (feel free to disagree) is that mmap() by default would > > > not return a tagged address (ignoring MTE for now). If it gets passed a > > > tagged address or a "tagged NULL" (for lack of a better name) we don't > > > have clear semantics of whether the returned address should be tagged in > > > this ABI relaxation. I'd rather reserve this specific behaviour if we > > > overload the non-zero tag meaning of mmap() for MTE. Similar reasoning > > > for mremap(), at least on the new_address argument (not entirely sure > > > about old_address). > > > > > > munmap() should probably follow the mmap() rules. > > > > > > As for brk(), I don't see why the user would need to pass a tagged > > > address, we can't associate any meaning to this tag. > > > > > > For the rest, since it's likely such addresses would have been tagged by > > > malloc() in user space, we should allow tagged pointers. > > > > Those arguments seem reasonable. We should try to capture this > > somewhere when documenting the ABI. > > > > To be clear, I'm not sure that we should guarantee anywhere that a > > tagged pointer is rejected: rather the behaviour should probably be > > left unspecified. Then we can tidy it up incrementally. > > > > (The behaviour is unspecified today, in any case.) > > What is specified (or rather de-facto ABI) today is that passing a user > address above TASK_SIZE (e.g. non-zero top byte) would fail in most > cases. If we relax this with the TBI we may end up with some de-facto I may be being too picky, but "would fail in most cases" sounds like "unspecified" ? > ABI before we actually get MTE hardware. Tightening it afterwards may be > slightly more problematic, although MTE needs to be an explicit opt-in. > > IOW, I wouldn't want to unnecessarily relax the ABI if we don't need to. So long we don't block foreseeable future developments unnecessarily either -- I agree there's a balance to be struck. I guess this can be reviewed when we have nailed down the details a bit further. Cheers ---Dave