* [RFC] um: an arm64 subarch for User Mode Linux
@ 2026-08-15 21:42 contact
2026-08-16 19:46 ` Richard Weinberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: contact @ 2026-08-15 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: richard, anton.ivanov, johannes; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi,
I have ARCH=um SUBARCH=arm64 working -- 33 patches on uml/next. Before
sending that many to the list I would like to know if it is wanted, and
in
what shape.
https://github.com/zalexdev/linux-um-arm64 (branch um-arm64)
Boots Alpine and Debian at 4K and 16K pages, SECCOMP and ptrace
userspace,
loadable modules.
The part I want an opinion on is syscall interception on hosts without
PTRACE_SYSEMU, since 5.3 is a recent floor for arm64 and phones ship
4.19.
There the guest syscall is cancelled by writing -1 to NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL
at
a PTRACE_SYSCALL stop. That fails under a seccomp filter, though: arm64
reports the ptrace stop before running seccomp, so the filter sees the
-1
and an Android app sandbox kills the tracee. So the third path
substitutes
getppid(2) for the guest's call -- the call still does not run, but a
syscall does execute on the guest's behalf. Is that acceptable? nosysemu
and nocancel select the fallbacks on any host, so they are testable
without a 4.19 machine.
Modules reuse arch/arm64/kernel/module.c and module-plts.c instead of a
second copy, the way arch/x86/um does. That does mean pulling two files
out
of arch/arm64.
Two changes are performance only. The stub handoff skips FUTEX_WAKE when
nobody is parked and spins against CNTVCT_EL0 before parking; anonymous
faults are batched onto the handoff that was happening anyway.
Snapdragon
870, SECCOMP mode, medians of 7 interleaved rounds:
syscall 9.841 -> 1.987 us
openat 20.223 -> 4.501 us
fault 24.592 -> 11.076 us
Known problems: no 32-bit compat, UP only, and "BUG: Bad rss-counter
state
... type:MM_FILEPAGES val:1" once per exiting process under Debian but
not
under Alpine on the same kernel. I have not found that one and would not
expect it merged as is.
About a third of the patches are not arm64 -- generic um/ fixes and two
x86
ones, including a missing 32-bit stub_seccomp_save_state -- but they sit
on
top of the subarch commit and do not apply alone. I can rebase them into
a
separate series first if that is more useful.
I cannot commit to maintaining this long-term. Happy to respin or split
it
however you want; say the word and I will send the series with
git send-email.
Thanks,
Oleksii
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] um: an arm64 subarch for User Mode Linux
2026-08-15 21:42 [RFC] um: an arm64 subarch for User Mode Linux contact
@ 2026-08-16 19:46 ` Richard Weinberger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard Weinberger @ 2026-08-16 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: contact; +Cc: anton ivanov, Johannes Berg, linux-kernel, linux-um
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: contact@zalexdev.com
> I have ARCH=um SUBARCH=arm64 working -- 33 patches on uml/next. Before
> sending that many to the list I would like to know if it is wanted, and
> in
> what shape.
>
> https://github.com/zalexdev/linux-um-arm64 (branch um-arm64)
>
> Boots Alpine and Debian at 4K and 16K pages, SECCOMP and ptrace
> userspace,
> loadable modules.
Nice. :-)
> The part I want an opinion on is syscall interception on hosts without
> PTRACE_SYSEMU, since 5.3 is a recent floor for arm64 and phones ship
> 4.19.
> There the guest syscall is cancelled by writing -1 to NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL
> at
> a PTRACE_SYSCALL stop. That fails under a seccomp filter, though: arm64
> reports the ptrace stop before running seccomp, so the filter sees the
> -1
> and an Android app sandbox kills the tracee. So the third path
> substitutes
> getppid(2) for the guest's call -- the call still does not run, but a
> syscall does execute on the guest's behalf. Is that acceptable? nosysemu
> and nocancel select the fallbacks on any host, so they are testable
> without a 4.19 machine.
Well, it's reasonable to require a non-ancient host kernel.
> Modules reuse arch/arm64/kernel/module.c and module-plts.c instead of a
> second copy, the way arch/x86/um does. That does mean pulling two files
> out
> of arch/arm64.
>
> Two changes are performance only. The stub handoff skips FUTEX_WAKE when
> nobody is parked and spins against CNTVCT_EL0 before parking; anonymous
> faults are batched onto the handoff that was happening anyway.
> Snapdragon
> 870, SECCOMP mode, medians of 7 interleaved rounds:
>
> syscall 9.841 -> 1.987 us
> openat 20.223 -> 4.501 us
> fault 24.592 -> 11.076 us
>
> Known problems: no 32-bit compat, UP only, and "BUG: Bad rss-counter
> state
> ... type:MM_FILEPAGES val:1" once per exiting process under Debian but
> not
> under Alpine on the same kernel. I have not found that one and would not
> expect it merged as is.
>
> About a third of the patches are not arm64 -- generic um/ fixes and two
> x86
> ones, including a missing 32-bit stub_seccomp_save_state -- but they sit
> on
> top of the subarch commit and do not apply alone. I can rebase them into
> a
> separate series first if that is more useful.
>
> I cannot commit to maintaining this long-term. Happy to respin or split
> it
> however you want; say the word and I will send the series with
> git send-email.
Patches are welcome, but don't expect others to do the hard work.
Thanks,
//richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-16 19:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-15 21:42 [RFC] um: an arm64 subarch for User Mode Linux contact
2026-08-16 19:46 ` Richard Weinberger
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.