From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:20:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never using TTBR0_EL1 switching In-Reply-To: <1473788797-10879-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> References: <1473788797-10879-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> Message-ID: <20160915162044.GB19214@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Catalin, On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:46:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > This is the third version of the arm64 PAN emulation using TTBR0_EL1 > switching. The series has not yet included the alternative nop patches > from Mark Rutland, nor the empty_zero_page from Ard B. This will be done > in a subsequent version once 4.9-rc1 is out (which will include Mark's > alternative nop patches). > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 8 ++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 33 +++++++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 6 ++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/efi.h | 26 ++++- > arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h | 14 +-- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kernel-pgtable.h | 7 ++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 51 +++++++--- > arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 2 + > arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h | 3 + > arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > arch/arm64/kernel/armv8_deprecated.c | 10 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 3 + > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 + > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 71 +++++++++++++- > arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 6 +- > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 9 ++ > arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 5 + > arch/arm64/lib/clear_user.S | 8 +- > arch/arm64/lib/copy_from_user.S | 8 +- > arch/arm64/lib/copy_in_user.S | 8 +- > arch/arm64/lib/copy_to_user.S | 8 +- > arch/arm64/mm/context.c | 7 +- > arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 22 +++-- > arch/arm64/mm/proc.S | 11 +-- > arch/arm64/xen/hypercall.S | 19 ++++ > 25 files changed, 428 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) I don't seee traps.c there. Don't we need to fix up do_sysinstr() (which performs raw cache maintenance ops on __user addresses) with uaccess_{enable,disable}_not_uao()? Likewise, how do we handle __flush_cache_user_range and flush_icache_range? Some callers (e.g. __do_compat_cache_op) pass in __user addresses. I hope we have some tests lying around for those. ;) Thanks, Mark.