Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI

[Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>]

Hi Catalin,

> On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_AS_HAS_LSUI
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define __LSUI_PREAMBLE	".arch_extension lsui\n"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define LSUI_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op, mb)				\
> > > > > +static __always_inline int						\
> > > > > +__lsui_futex_atomic_##op(int oparg, u32 __user *uaddr, int *oval)	\
> > > > > +{									\
> > > > > +	int ret = 0;							\
> > > > > +	int val;							\
> > > > > +									\
> > > > > +	mte_enable_tco();						\
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The reason uaccess_disable_privileged() sets the MTE TCO (tag check
> > > > override) is because the user and the kernel may have different settings
> > > > for tag checking. If we use the user instructions provided by FEAT_LSUI,
> > > > we leave the MTE checking as is.
> > > >
> > > > The same comment for all the other functions here.
> > >
> > > You're right. Thanks for catching this :)
> >
> > But one bikeshedding question.
> > why we need to care about the different settings for tag checking when
> > we use uaccess_disable_privileged()?
>
> Because, for example, the user may not be interested in any tag check
> faults (has checking disabled) but the kernel uses KASAN with
> synchronous tag check faults. If it uses the privileged instructions as
> in the futex API, it either won't make progress or report errors to the
> user which it does not expect.
>
> > IIUC, the reason we uses to uaccess_disaable_privileged() to access
> > user memory with copy_from/to_user() and etc.
>
> We don't use uaccess_disable_privileged() with copy_from_user() since
> those use the unprivileged instructions already.

Thanks for your explaination :)

>
> > But, although tag check fault happens in kernel side,
> > It seems to be handled by fixup code if user address is wrong.
>
> The user may know it is wrong and not care (e.g. one wants to keep using
> a buggy application).

Then Does this example -- ignoring wrong and keep using a buggy
application shows us that we need to enable TCO when
we runs the LSUI instruction?

AFAIK, LSUI instruction also check memory tag -- i.e) ldtadd.
if passed user address which has unmatched tag and if user isn't
interested in tah check, It can meet the unexpected report from KASAN.

Am I missing something?

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun