From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yu-cheng Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification support Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:34:22 -0700 Message-ID: <5f92e89a5823a3265fa0b389a19452ba995e9406.camel@intel.com> References: <1558693533-13465-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1558693533-13465-5-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <20190524130217.GA15566@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190524145306.GZ28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190606171155.GI56860@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190606172345.GD28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190606172345.GD28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Martin , Catalin Marinas Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Paul Elliott , "H.J. Lu" , Szabolcs Nagy , Richard Henderson , Will Deacon , Andrew Jones , Kristina =?UTF-8?Q?Mart=C5=A1enko?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudakshina Das , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 18:23 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > #endif /* _UAPI__ASM_HWCAP_H */ > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..4776b43 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > > > > +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > +#define _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > + > > > > > +#include > > > > > + > > > > > +#define PROT_BTI_GUARDED 0x10 /* BTI guarded > > > > > page */ > > > > > > > > From prior discussions, I thought this would be PROT_BTI, without the > > > > _GUARDED suffix. Do we really need that? > > > > > > > > AFAICT, all other PROT_* definitions only have a single underscore, and > > > > the existing arch-specific flags are PROT_ADI on sparc, and PROT_SAO on > > > > powerpc. > > > > > > No strong opinon. I was trying to make the name less obscure, but I'm > > > equally happy with PROT_BTI if people prefer that. > > > > I prefer PROT_BTI as well. We are going to add a PROT_MTE at some point > > (and a VM_ARM64_MTE in the high VMA flag bits). > > Ack. > > Some things need attention, so I need to respin this series anyway. > > skip_faulting_instruction() and kprobes/uprobes may need looking at, > plus I want to simply the ELF parsing (at least to skip some cost for > arm64). Can we add a case in the 'consistency checks for the interpreter' (right above where you add arch_parse_property()) for PT_NOTE? That way you can still use part of the same parser. Yu-cheng From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:37402 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729080AbfFFRmY (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:42:24 -0400 Message-ID: <5f92e89a5823a3265fa0b389a19452ba995e9406.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] arm64: Basic Branch Target Identification support From: Yu-cheng Yu Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:34:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190606172345.GD28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1558693533-13465-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1558693533-13465-5-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <20190524130217.GA15566@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190524145306.GZ28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <20190606171155.GI56860@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20190606172345.GD28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Martin , Catalin Marinas Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Paul Elliott , "H.J. Lu" , Szabolcs Nagy , Richard Henderson , Will Deacon , Andrew Jones , Kristina =?UTF-8?Q?Mart=C5=A1enko?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudakshina Das , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20190606173422.i8lm3Q9E491wTs274PkuiwJVfJ5UWzec9G4EZT-tT1Q@z> On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 18:23 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > > #endif /* _UAPI__ASM_HWCAP_H */ > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..4776b43 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > > > > +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > +#define _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > > > + > > > > > +#include > > > > > + > > > > > +#define PROT_BTI_GUARDED 0x10 /* BTI guarded > > > > > page */ > > > > > > > > From prior discussions, I thought this would be PROT_BTI, without the > > > > _GUARDED suffix. Do we really need that? > > > > > > > > AFAICT, all other PROT_* definitions only have a single underscore, and > > > > the existing arch-specific flags are PROT_ADI on sparc, and PROT_SAO on > > > > powerpc. > > > > > > No strong opinon. I was trying to make the name less obscure, but I'm > > > equally happy with PROT_BTI if people prefer that. > > > > I prefer PROT_BTI as well. We are going to add a PROT_MTE at some point > > (and a VM_ARM64_MTE in the high VMA flag bits). > > Ack. > > Some things need attention, so I need to respin this series anyway. > > skip_faulting_instruction() and kprobes/uprobes may need looking at, > plus I want to simply the ELF parsing (at least to skip some cost for > arm64). Can we add a case in the 'consistency checks for the interpreter' (right above where you add arch_parse_property()) for PT_NOTE? That way you can still use part of the same parser. Yu-cheng