From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] arm64: Relax Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:32:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20190823163247.GG27757@arm.com> References: <20190821164730.47450-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20190821164730.47450-4-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20190821173352.yqfgaozi7nfhcofg@willie-the-truck> <20190821184649.GD27757@arm.com> <20190822155531.GB55798@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190822163723.GF27757@arm.com> <20190823161912.GJ29387@arrakis.emea.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190823161912.GJ29387@arrakis.emea.arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy , Andrey Konovalov , Kevin Brodsky , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Dave Hansen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 05:19:13PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 05:37:23PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:55:32PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:46:51PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: [...] > > > > sigaltstack() is interesting, since we don't support tagged stacks. > > > > > > We should support tagged SP with the new ABI as they'll be required for > > > MTE. sigaltstack() and clone() are the two syscalls that come to mind > > > here. > > > > > > > Do we keep the ss_sp tag in the kernel, but squash it when delivering > > > > a signal to the alternate stack? > > > > > > We don't seem to be doing any untagging, so we just just use whatever > > > the caller asked for. We may need a small test to confirm. > > > > If we want to support tagged SP, then I guess we shouldn't be squashing > > the tag anywhere. A test for that would be sensible to have. > > I hacked the sas.c kselftest to use a tagged stack and works fine, the > SP register has a tagged address on the signal handler. Cool... [...] > > > > There is no foolproof rule, unless we can rewrite history... > > > > > > I would expect the norm to be the preservation of tags with a few > > > exceptions. The only ones I think where we won't preserve the tags are > > > mmap, mremap, brk (apart from the signal stuff already mentioned in the > > > current tagged-pointers.rst doc). > > > > > > So I can remove this paragraph altogether and add a note in part 3 of > > > the tagged-address-abi.rst document that mmap/mremap/brk do not preserve > > > the tag information. > > > > Deleting text is always a good idea ;) > > I'm going this route ;). [reply deleted] Cheers ---Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:36952 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390061AbfHWQcx (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:32:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:32:49 +0100 From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] arm64: Relax Documentation/arm64/tagged-pointers.rst Message-ID: <20190823163247.GG27757@arm.com> References: <20190821164730.47450-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20190821164730.47450-4-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20190821173352.yqfgaozi7nfhcofg@willie-the-truck> <20190821184649.GD27757@arm.com> <20190822155531.GB55798@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190822163723.GF27757@arm.com> <20190823161912.GJ29387@arrakis.emea.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190823161912.GJ29387@arrakis.emea.arm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Szabolcs Nagy , Andrey Konovalov , Kevin Brodsky , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Vincenzo Frascino , Will Deacon , Dave Hansen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20190823163249.oI6FJ22qkeDILeMswAL3IbTWLF8_bCgYZV4dFC_yTS0@z> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 05:19:13PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 05:37:23PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:55:32PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:46:51PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: [...] > > > > sigaltstack() is interesting, since we don't support tagged stacks. > > > > > > We should support tagged SP with the new ABI as they'll be required for > > > MTE. sigaltstack() and clone() are the two syscalls that come to mind > > > here. > > > > > > > Do we keep the ss_sp tag in the kernel, but squash it when delivering > > > > a signal to the alternate stack? > > > > > > We don't seem to be doing any untagging, so we just just use whatever > > > the caller asked for. We may need a small test to confirm. > > > > If we want to support tagged SP, then I guess we shouldn't be squashing > > the tag anywhere. A test for that would be sensible to have. > > I hacked the sas.c kselftest to use a tagged stack and works fine, the > SP register has a tagged address on the signal handler. Cool... [...] > > > > There is no foolproof rule, unless we can rewrite history... > > > > > > I would expect the norm to be the preservation of tags with a few > > > exceptions. The only ones I think where we won't preserve the tags are > > > mmap, mremap, brk (apart from the signal stuff already mentioned in the > > > current tagged-pointers.rst doc). > > > > > > So I can remove this paragraph altogether and add a note in part 3 of > > > the tagged-address-abi.rst document that mmap/mremap/brk do not preserve > > > the tag information. > > > > Deleting text is always a good idea ;) > > I'm going this route ;). [reply deleted] Cheers ---Dave