Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.txt

Catalin Marinas
2019-06-21T15:16:41Z

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 13/06/2019 16:51, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > +The ARM64 Tagged Address ABI is an opt-in feature, and an application can
> > +control it using the following:
> > + - /proc/sys/abi/tagged_addr: a new sysctl interface that can be used to
> > + prevent the applications from enabling the relaxed ABI.
> > + The sysctl is meant also for testing purposes in order to provide a
> > + simple way for the userspace to verify the return error checking of
> > + the prctl() commands without having to reconfigure the kernel.
> > + The sysctl supports the following configuration options:
> > + - 0: Disable ARM64 Tagged Address ABI for all the applications.
> > + - 1 (Default): Enable ARM64 Tagged Address ABI for all the
> > + applications.
>
> I find this very confusing, because it suggests that the default value of
> PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL for new processes will be set to the value of this
> sysctl, when in fact this sysctl is about restricting the *availability* of
> the new ABI. Instead of disabling the ABI, I would talk about disabling
> access to the new ABI here.

This bullet point needs to be re-written. The sysctl is meant to disable
opting in to the ABI. I'd also drop the "meant for testing" part. I put
it in my commit log as justification but I don't think it should be part
of the ABI document.

> > + - prctl()s:
> > + - PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL: can be used to enable or disable the Tagged
> > + Address ABI.
> > + The (unsigned int) arg2 argument is a bit mask describing the
> > + control mode used:
> > + - PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE: Enable ARM64 Tagged Address ABI.
> > + The arguments arg3, arg4, and arg5 are ignored.
>
> Have we definitely decided that arg{3,4,5} are ignored? Catalin?

I don't have a strong preference either way. If it's simpler for the
user to ignore them, fine by me. I can see in the current prctl commands
a mix if ignore vs forced zero.

> > +the ABI guarantees the following behaviours:
> > +
> > + - Every current or newly introduced syscall can accept any valid tagged
> > + pointers.
> "pointer". Also, is it really useful to talk about newly introduced syscall?
> New from which point of view?

I think we should drop this guarantee. It would have made sense if we
allowed tagged pointers everywhere but we already have some exceptions.

> > +3. ARM64 Tagged Address ABI Exceptions
> > +--------------------------------------
> > +
> > +The behaviours described in section 2, with particular reference to the
> > +acceptance by the syscalls of any valid tagged pointer are not applicable
> > +to the following cases:
> > + - mmap() addr parameter.
> > + - mremap() new_address parameter.
> > + - prctl_set_mm() struct prctl_map fields.
> > + - prctl_set_mm_map() struct prctl_map fields.
>
> prctl_set_mm() and prctl_set_mm_map() are internal kernel functions, not
> syscall names. IIUC, we don't want to allow any address field settable via
> the PR_SET_MM prctl() to be tagged. Catalin, is that correct? I think this
> needs rephrasing.

I fully agree. It should talk about PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_MAP,
PR_SET_MM_MAP_SIZE.

--
Catalin