From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEABC433DF for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D45E204EF for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="pjZb1IcH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1D45E204EF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=5f7vLH66fw1OEPmYT0iDinaU+nrMRwFxMWL19sw2rOo=; b=pjZb1IcH4wBX7r 2Dfy9yBjoIx4mT9yBrvQFvcdSNLaiNO1TZLGYPYlQZaKDw8V11njlk7LEHVRNJ8ZpRM/pxaZDDJo5 Ib+Boqn9PRvmCTvkfWKX4K7uvGka8oyIiMQZXYXQeUViUnlY2AFeE/m3qzH577QkhfHSvDnZCg2CY XFvbfFRoHqJZpSX3V5Ziw62WEiJQvj71iveyqv6K+b1Y4Q5wmfTCgyqxjyevYB7bZBp6I63B8KUKP 4ZeF0EcTzgmU4PAq9Rd4YJf7C11HATAseesC3aJIcYhKj0uDQHvlMaaLfYMlMzJUl4b4/HJlHVRd6 QWIoD0YamBIonS/x/69Q==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jZYVM-0005pW-7x; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:27:52 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jZYVJ-0005oz-BO for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:27:50 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56834D6E; Fri, 15 May 2020 04:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gaia (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD4733F305; Fri, 15 May 2020 04:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:27:40 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Szabolcs Nagy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 23/23] arm64: mte: Add Memory Tagging Extension documentation Message-ID: <20200515112740.GB22393@gaia> References: <20200421142603.3894-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20200421142603.3894-24-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20200429164705.GF30377@arm.com> <20200430162316.GJ2717@gaia> <20200504164617.GK30377@arm.com> <20200511164018.GC19176@gaia> <20200513154845.GT21779@arm.com> <20200514113722.GA1907@gaia> <20200515103839.GA22393@gaia> <20200515111359.GC27289@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200515111359.GC27289@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200515_042749_433030_639EE72C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.09 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Richard Earnshaw , nd@arm.com, Will Deacon , Andrey Konovalov , Kevin Brodsky , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vincenzo Frascino , Peter Collingbourne , Dave Martin , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:14:00PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > The 05/15/2020 11:38, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:37:22PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > We have two options with suboptions: > > > > > > 1. prctl() gets an exclude mask with 0xffff illegal even though the > > > hardware accepts it: > > > a) default exclude mask 0, allowing all tags to be generated by IRG > > > b) default exclude mask of 0xfffe so that only tag 0 is generated > > > > > > 2. prctl() gets an include mask with 0 illegal: > > > a) default include mask is 0xffff, allowing all tags to be generated > > > b) default include mask 0f 0x0001 so that only tag 0 is generated > > > > > > We currently have (2) with mask 0 but could be changed to (2.b). If we > > > are to follow the hardware description (which makes more sense to me but > > > I don't write the C library), (1.a) is the most appropriate. > > > > Thinking some more about this, as we are to expose the GCR_EL1.Excl via > > a ptrace interface as a regset, it makes more sense to move back to an > > exclude mask here with default 0. That would be option 1.a above. > > i think the libc has to do a prctl call to set > mte up and at that point it will use whatever > arguments necessary, so 1.a should work (just > like the other options). > > likely libc will disable 0 for irg and possibly > one or two other fixed colors (which will have > specific use). > > the difference i see between 1 vs 2 is forward > compatibility if the architecture changes (e.g. > adding more tag bits) but then likely new prctl > flag will be needed for handling that so it's > probably not an issue. Thanks Szabolcs. While we are at this, no-one so far asked for the GCR_EL1.RRND to be exposed to user (and this implies RGSR_EL1.SEED). Since RRND=1 guarantees a distribution "no worse" than that of RRND=0, I thought there isn't much point in exposing this configuration to the user. The only advantage of RRND=0 I see is that the kernel can change the seed randomly but, with only 4 bits per tag, it really doesn't matter much. Anyway, mentioning it here in case anyone is surprised later about the lack of RRND configurability. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel