[PATCH 0/4] POE sigreturn fix and extra tests

[PATCH 0/4] POE sigreturn fix and extra tests

[Kevin Brodsky]

Commit 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to
avoid uaccess failures") introduced special handling for EL0 registers
that impact uaccess. This did not however handle the case where a signal
handler removes the relevant record (poe_context for POE) from the
signal frame; this is clearly not typical behaviour but it is legal.
That commit resulted in arbitrary data from the kernel stack being
written to POR_EL0 in that case.

Patch 1 fixes this by tracking which fields in struct user_access_state
are actually valid. This restores the original behaviour, where POR_EL0
is left untouched if poe_context is removed.

The remaining patches add new tests to the arm64 signal kselftests to
check that POR_EL0 is reset and restored (or preserved) as expected.
---
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
---
Kevin Brodsky (4):
  arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing
  kselftest/arm64: Add POE as a feature in the signal tests
  kselftest/arm64: Add POE helpers to test_signals_utils.h
  kselftest/arm64: Add tests for POR_EL0 save/reset/restore

 arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c                    | 19 +++--
 .../selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h     |  2 +
 .../arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c         |  3 +
 .../arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h         | 16 ++++
 .../testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c       | 73 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c      | 64 ++++++++++++++++
 .../arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c      | 15 ----
 7 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c


base-commit: 028ef9c96e96197026887c0f092424679298aae8
-- 
2.51.2

[PATCH 1/4] arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing

[Kevin Brodsky]

Commit 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to
avoid uaccess failures") delayed the write to POR_EL0 in
rt_sigreturn to avoid spurious uaccess failures. This change however
relies on the poe_context frame record being present: on a system
supporting POE, calling sigreturn without a poe_context record now
results in writing arbitrary data from the kernel stack into POR_EL0.

Fix this by adding a valid_fields member to struct
user_access_state, and zeroing the struct on allocation.
restore_poe_context() then indicates that the por_el0 field is valid
by setting the corresponding bit in valid_fields, and
restore_user_access_state() only touches POR_EL0 if there is a valid
value to set it to. This is in line with how POR_EL0 was originally
handled; all frame records are currently optional, except
fpsimd_context.

restore_user_access_state() is also called if setting up the signal
frame fails, so we also initialise valid_fields in that case. For
consistency, setup_sigframe() now also checks valid_fields to decide
whether to write a poe_context record, avoiding another call to
system_supports_poe().

Fixes: 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to avoid uaccess failures")
Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
index 08ffc5a5aea4..3f17aed5b4f0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
 	unsigned long end_offset;
 };
 
+#define UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0	BIT(0)
+
 /*
  * Holds any EL0-controlled state that influences unprivileged memory accesses.
  * This includes both accesses done in userspace and uaccess done in the kernel.
@@ -74,8 +76,12 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
  * This state needs to be carefully managed to ensure that it doesn't cause
  * uaccess to fail when setting up the signal frame, and the signal handler
  * itself also expects a well-defined state when entered.
+ *
+ * The valid_fields member is a bitfield (see UA_STATE_HAS_*), specifying which
+ * of the remaining fields is valid (has been set to a value).
  */
 struct user_access_state {
+	unsigned int valid_fields;
 	u64 por_el0;
 };
 
@@ -95,6 +101,7 @@ static void save_reset_user_access_state(struct user_access_state *ua_state)
 			por_enable_all |= POR_ELx_PERM_PREP(pkey, POE_RWX);
 
 		ua_state->por_el0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_POR_EL0);
+		ua_state->valid_fields |= UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0;
 		write_sysreg_s(por_enable_all, SYS_POR_EL0);
 		/*
 		 * No ISB required as we can tolerate spurious Overlay faults -
@@ -122,7 +129,7 @@ static void set_handler_user_access_state(void)
  */
 static void restore_user_access_state(const struct user_access_state *ua_state)
 {
-	if (system_supports_poe())
+	if (ua_state->valid_fields & UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0)
 		write_sysreg_s(ua_state->por_el0, SYS_POR_EL0);
 }
 
@@ -352,8 +359,10 @@ static int restore_poe_context(struct user_ctxs *user,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	__get_user_error(por_el0, &(user->poe->por_el0), err);
-	if (!err)
+	if (!err) {
 		ua_state->por_el0 = por_el0;
+		ua_state->valid_fields |= UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0;
+	}
 
 	return err;
 }
@@ -1095,7 +1104,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(rt_sigreturn)
 {
 	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
 	struct rt_sigframe __user *frame;
-	struct user_access_state ua_state;
+	struct user_access_state ua_state = {0};
 
 	/* Always make any pending restarted system calls return -EINTR */
 	current->restart_block.fn = do_no_restart_syscall;
@@ -1302,7 +1311,7 @@ static int setup_sigframe(struct rt_sigframe_user_layout *user,
 		err |= preserve_fpmr_context(fpmr_ctx);
 	}
 
-	if (system_supports_poe() && err == 0) {
+	if ((ua_state->valid_fields & UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0) && err == 0) {
 		struct poe_context __user *poe_ctx =
 			apply_user_offset(user, user->poe_offset);
 
@@ -1507,7 +1516,7 @@ static int setup_rt_frame(int usig, struct ksignal *ksig, sigset_t *set,
 {
 	struct rt_sigframe_user_layout user;
 	struct rt_sigframe __user *frame;
-	struct user_access_state ua_state;
+	struct user_access_state ua_state = {0};
 	int err = 0;
 
 	fpsimd_save_and_flush_current_state();
-- 
2.51.2

[PATCH 2/4] kselftest/arm64: Add POE as a feature in the signal tests

[Kevin Brodsky]

Add the POE feature to the signal tests framework, to allow tests to
require it.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h       | 2 ++
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c | 3 +++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
index ee75a2c25ce7..c7c343494cb8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals.h
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ enum {
 	FSME_FA64_BIT,
 	FSME2_BIT,
 	FGCS_BIT,
+	FPOE_BIT,
 	FMAX_END
 };
 
@@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ enum {
 #define FEAT_SME_FA64		(1UL << FSME_FA64_BIT)
 #define FEAT_SME2		(1UL << FSME2_BIT)
 #define FEAT_GCS		(1UL << FGCS_BIT)
+#define FEAT_POE		(1UL << FPOE_BIT)
 
 /*
  * A descriptor used to describe and configure a test case.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
index 5d3621921cfe..4b12dbd7669d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ static char const *const feats_names[FMAX_END] = {
 	" FA64 ",
 	" SME2 ",
 	" GCS ",
+	" POE ",
 };
 
 #define MAX_FEATS_SZ	128
@@ -341,6 +342,8 @@ int test_init(struct tdescr *td)
 			td->feats_supported |= FEAT_SME2;
 		if (getauxval(AT_HWCAP) & HWCAP_GCS)
 			td->feats_supported |= FEAT_GCS;
+		if (getauxval(AT_HWCAP2) & HWCAP2_POE)
+			td->feats_supported |= FEAT_POE;
 		if (feats_ok(td)) {
 			if (td->feats_required & td->feats_supported)
 				fprintf(stderr,
-- 
2.51.2

[PATCH 3/4] kselftest/arm64: Add POE helpers to test_signals_utils.h

[Kevin Brodsky]

In preparation to adding further POE signal tests, move
get_por_el0() to test_signals_utils.h and add set_por_el0().

Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
---
 .../selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h  | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 .../arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c         | 15 ---------------
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h
index 36fc12b3cd60..2c7b8c64a35a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/test_signals_utils.h
@@ -57,6 +57,22 @@ static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) uint64_t get_gcspr_el0(void)
 	return val;
 }
 
+#define SYS_POR_EL0 "S3_3_C10_C2_4"
+
+static inline uint64_t get_por_el0(void)
+{
+	uint64_t val;
+
+	asm volatile("mrs %0, " SYS_POR_EL0 "\n" : "=r"(val));
+
+	return val;
+}
+
+static inline void set_por_el0(uint64_t val)
+{
+	asm volatile("msr " SYS_POR_EL0 ", %0\n" :: "r"(val));
+}
+
 static inline bool feats_ok(struct tdescr *td)
 {
 	if (td->feats_incompatible & td->feats_supported)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c
index 36bd9940ee05..e15fedf4da6e 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_siginfo.c
@@ -21,21 +21,6 @@ static union {
 	char buf[1024 * 128];
 } context;
 
-#define SYS_POR_EL0 "S3_3_C10_C2_4"
-
-static uint64_t get_por_el0(void)
-{
-	uint64_t val;
-
-	asm volatile(
-		"mrs	%0, " SYS_POR_EL0 "\n"
-		: "=r"(val)
-		:
-		: );
-
-	return val;
-}
-
 int poe_present(struct tdescr *td, siginfo_t *si, ucontext_t *uc)
 {
 	struct _aarch64_ctx *head = GET_BUF_RESV_HEAD(context);
-- 
2.51.2

[PATCH 4/4] kselftest/arm64: Add tests for POR_EL0 save/reset/restore

[Kevin Brodsky]

POR_EL0 is expected to be:
- Saved in the poe_context record
- Reset to POR_EL0_INIT when invoking the signal handler
- Restored from poe_context when returning from the signal handler

Add a new test, poe_restore, to check that the save/reset/restore
mechanism is working as intended. See commit 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64:
signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to avoid uaccess failures") for
more details.

This commit did not handle the case where poe_context is missing
correctly. This was recently fixed; add a new test,
poe_missing_poe_context, to check this case.

Note: td->pass is only set to true at the very end, as an unexpected
signal may occur in case of failure (especially in
poe_missing_poe_context if POR_EL0 is restored to an invalid value).
Failures are tracked with a global, failed_check.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
---
 .../testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c       | 73 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c      | 64 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 137 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..abab7400d9df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_missing_poe_context.c
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2026 Arm Ltd
+ *
+ * Verify that the POR_EL0 register is left untouched on sigreturn if the
+ * POE frame record is missing.
+ */
+
+#include <asm/sigcontext.h>
+
+#include "test_signals_utils.h"
+#include "testcases.h"
+
+#define POR_EL0_INIT	0x07ul
+#define POR_EL0_CUSTOM	0x77ul
+
+static bool failed_check;
+
+static bool modify_por_el0(struct tdescr *td)
+{
+	set_por_el0(POR_EL0_CUSTOM);
+
+	return true;
+}
+
+static int signal_remove_poe_context(struct tdescr *td, siginfo_t *si,
+				      ucontext_t *uc)
+{
+	struct _aarch64_ctx *ctx = GET_UC_RESV_HEAD(uc);
+	struct _aarch64_ctx *poe_ctx_head;
+
+	poe_ctx_head = get_header(ctx, POE_MAGIC, sizeof(uc->uc_mcontext),
+				  NULL);
+	if (!poe_ctx_head) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "Missing poe_context record\n");
+		failed_check = true;
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Actually removing the record would require moving down the next
+	 * records. An easier option is to turn it into an ESR record, which is
+	 * ignored by sigreturn().
+	 */
+	poe_ctx_head->magic = ESR_MAGIC;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void check_por_el0_preserved(struct tdescr *td)
+{
+	uint64_t por_el0 = get_por_el0();
+
+	if (por_el0 == POR_EL0_INIT) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "POR_EL0 preserved\n");
+	} else {
+		fprintf(stderr, "POR_EL0 unexpectedly set to %lx\n", por_el0);
+		failed_check = true;
+	}
+
+	td->pass = !failed_check;
+}
+
+struct tdescr tde = {
+	.name = "POR_EL0 missing poe_context",
+	.descr = "Remove poe_context record and check POR_EL0 is preserved",
+	.feats_required = FEAT_POE,
+	.timeout = 3,
+	.sig_trig = SIGUSR1,
+	.init = modify_por_el0,
+	.run = signal_remove_poe_context,
+	.check_result = check_por_el0_preserved,
+};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9f9a61a4214d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/signal/testcases/poe_restore.c
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2026 Arm Ltd
+ *
+ * Verify that the POR_EL0 register is saved and restored as expected on signal
+ * entry/return.
+ */
+
+#include <asm/sigcontext.h>
+
+#include "test_signals_utils.h"
+#include "testcases.h"
+
+#define POR_EL0_INIT	0x07ul
+#define POR_EL0_CUSTOM	0x77ul
+
+static bool failed_check;
+
+static bool modify_por_el0(struct tdescr *td)
+{
+	set_por_el0(POR_EL0_CUSTOM);
+
+	return true;
+}
+
+static int signal_check_por_el0_reset(struct tdescr *td, siginfo_t *si,
+				      ucontext_t *uc)
+{
+	uint64_t signal_por_el0 = get_por_el0();
+
+	if (signal_por_el0 != POR_EL0_INIT) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "POR_EL0 is %lx in signal handler (expected %lx)\n",
+			signal_por_el0, POR_EL0_INIT);
+		failed_check = true;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void check_por_el0_restored(struct tdescr *td)
+{
+	uint64_t por_el0 = get_por_el0();
+
+	if (por_el0 == POR_EL0_CUSTOM) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "POR_EL0 restored\n");
+	} else {
+		fprintf(stderr, "POR_EL0 was %lx but is now %lx\n",
+			POR_EL0_CUSTOM, por_el0);
+		failed_check = true;
+	}
+
+	td->pass = !failed_check;
+}
+
+struct tdescr tde = {
+	.name = "POR_EL0 restore",
+	.descr = "Validate that POR_EL0 is saved/restored on signal entry/return",
+	.feats_required = FEAT_POE,
+	.timeout = 3,
+	.sig_trig = SIGUSR1,
+	.init = modify_por_el0,
+	.run = signal_check_por_el0_reset,
+	.check_result = check_por_el0_restored,
+};
-- 
2.51.2

Re: [PATCH 2/4] kselftest/arm64: Add POE as a feature in the signal tests

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 194 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 03:42:50PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> Add the POE feature to the signal tests framework, to allow tests to
> require it.

Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] kselftest/arm64: Add POE helpers to test_signals_utils.h

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:

> In preparation to adding further POE signal tests, move
> get_por_el0() to test_signals_utils.h and add set_por_el0().

Subject line should probably also say move if there's a v2 but otherwise

Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing

[Will Deacon]

Hey Kevin,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 03:42:49PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> Commit 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to
> avoid uaccess failures") delayed the write to POR_EL0 in
> rt_sigreturn to avoid spurious uaccess failures. This change however
> relies on the poe_context frame record being present: on a system
> supporting POE, calling sigreturn without a poe_context record now
> results in writing arbitrary data from the kernel stack into POR_EL0.
> 
> Fix this by adding a valid_fields member to struct
> user_access_state, and zeroing the struct on allocation.
> restore_poe_context() then indicates that the por_el0 field is valid
> by setting the corresponding bit in valid_fields, and
> restore_user_access_state() only touches POR_EL0 if there is a valid
> value to set it to. This is in line with how POR_EL0 was originally
> handled; all frame records are currently optional, except
> fpsimd_context.
> 
> restore_user_access_state() is also called if setting up the signal
> frame fails, so we also initialise valid_fields in that case. For
> consistency, setup_sigframe() now also checks valid_fields to decide
> whether to write a poe_context record, avoiding another call to
> system_supports_poe().
> 
> Fixes: 2e8a1acea859 ("arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to avoid uaccess failures")
> Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>

Thanks for fixing this. I think your patch is correct, but I have a
couple of comments inline. Please let me know what you think.

> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> index 08ffc5a5aea4..3f17aed5b4f0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
>  	unsigned long end_offset;
>  };
>  
> +#define UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0	BIT(0)
> +
>  /*
>   * Holds any EL0-controlled state that influences unprivileged memory accesses.
>   * This includes both accesses done in userspace and uaccess done in the kernel.
> @@ -74,8 +76,12 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
>   * This state needs to be carefully managed to ensure that it doesn't cause
>   * uaccess to fail when setting up the signal frame, and the signal handler
>   * itself also expects a well-defined state when entered.
> + *
> + * The valid_fields member is a bitfield (see UA_STATE_HAS_*), specifying which
> + * of the remaining fields is valid (has been set to a value).
>   */
>  struct user_access_state {
> +	unsigned int valid_fields;
>  	u64 por_el0;
>  };

Do you think it would be worth adding some accessors to make it easier
to keep the flags in sync? For example:

/* Stores por_el0 into uas->por_el0 and sets UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0 */
void set_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 por_el0);

/*
 * If UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0, *por_el0 = uas->por_el0 and return 0.
 * Otherwise, return -ENOENT.
 */
int get_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 *por_el0);

WDYT?

> @@ -1095,7 +1104,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(rt_sigreturn)
>  {
>  	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>  	struct rt_sigframe __user *frame;
> -	struct user_access_state ua_state;
> +	struct user_access_state ua_state = {0};

nit: {} should do (no need for the '0'). Same in setup_rt_frame().

Will

Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing

[Kevin Brodsky]

On 22/04/2026 14:19, Will Deacon wrote:
>> @@ -74,8 +76,12 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
>>   * This state needs to be carefully managed to ensure that it doesn't cause
>>   * uaccess to fail when setting up the signal frame, and the signal handler
>>   * itself also expects a well-defined state when entered.
>> + *
>> + * The valid_fields member is a bitfield (see UA_STATE_HAS_*), specifying which
>> + * of the remaining fields is valid (has been set to a value).
>>   */
>>  struct user_access_state {
>> +	unsigned int valid_fields;
>>  	u64 por_el0;
>>  };
> Do you think it would be worth adding some accessors to make it easier
> to keep the flags in sync? For example:
>
> /* Stores por_el0 into uas->por_el0 and sets UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0 */
> void set_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 por_el0);
>
> /*
>  * If UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0, *por_el0 = uas->por_el0 and return 0.
>  * Otherwise, return -ENOENT.
>  */
> int get_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 *por_el0);
>
> WDYT?

I did get a feeling having helpers would be a good idea. I wonder if
getters/setters aren't a bit overkill though, as they make accesses to
the struct more cumbersome and we'd need a pair for every member (unless
we use some macro magic). Maybe it would be sufficient to have say
ua_state_has_field(POR_EL0) to check if the bit is set, and
ua_state_set_field_valid(POR_EL0) to set the bit?

>> @@ -1095,7 +1104,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(rt_sigreturn)
>>  {
>>  	struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
>>  	struct rt_sigframe __user *frame;
>> -	struct user_access_state ua_state;
>> +	struct user_access_state ua_state = {0};
> nit: {} should do (no need for the '0'). Same in setup_rt_frame().

Will change it, I have some vague recollection that GCC and Clang
disagreed about the meaning of {}... but that's probably fixed nowadays.

Thanks for the review!

- Kevin

Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 04:55:05PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 22/04/2026 14:19, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> @@ -74,8 +76,12 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
> >>   * This state needs to be carefully managed to ensure that it doesn't cause
> >>   * uaccess to fail when setting up the signal frame, and the signal handler
> >>   * itself also expects a well-defined state when entered.
> >> + *
> >> + * The valid_fields member is a bitfield (see UA_STATE_HAS_*), specifying which
> >> + * of the remaining fields is valid (has been set to a value).
> >>   */
> >>  struct user_access_state {
> >> +	unsigned int valid_fields;
> >>  	u64 por_el0;
> >>  };
> > Do you think it would be worth adding some accessors to make it easier
> > to keep the flags in sync? For example:
> >
> > /* Stores por_el0 into uas->por_el0 and sets UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0 */
> > void set_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 por_el0);
> >
> > /*
> >  * If UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0, *por_el0 = uas->por_el0 and return 0.
> >  * Otherwise, return -ENOENT.
> >  */
> > int get_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 *por_el0);
> >
> > WDYT?
> 
> I did get a feeling having helpers would be a good idea. I wonder if
> getters/setters aren't a bit overkill though, as they make accesses to
> the struct more cumbersome and we'd need a pair for every member (unless
> we use some macro magic).

We only have one struct member, so it's probably fine for now, and we
could group related members together in sub-structures to help in future.
But it's up to you -- I don't feel strongly about it, but requiring the
caller to update the flag manually is going to be a bug magnet.

> Maybe it would be sufficient to have say
> ua_state_has_field(POR_EL0) to check if the bit is set, and
> ua_state_set_field_valid(POR_EL0) to set the bit?

I don't think that really helps with my concern. I'd like to avoid callers
having to remember to deal with the flags when they update the data.

Will

Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: signal: Preserve POR_EL0 if poe_context is missing

[Kevin Brodsky]

On 23/04/2026 14:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 04:55:05PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> On 22/04/2026 14:19, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> @@ -74,8 +76,12 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
>>>>   * This state needs to be carefully managed to ensure that it doesn't cause
>>>>   * uaccess to fail when setting up the signal frame, and the signal handler
>>>>   * itself also expects a well-defined state when entered.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * The valid_fields member is a bitfield (see UA_STATE_HAS_*), specifying which
>>>> + * of the remaining fields is valid (has been set to a value).
>>>>   */
>>>>  struct user_access_state {
>>>> +	unsigned int valid_fields;
>>>>  	u64 por_el0;
>>>>  };
>>> Do you think it would be worth adding some accessors to make it easier
>>> to keep the flags in sync? For example:
>>>
>>> /* Stores por_el0 into uas->por_el0 and sets UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0 */
>>> void set_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 por_el0);
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  * If UA_STATE_HAS_POR_EL0, *por_el0 = uas->por_el0 and return 0.
>>>  * Otherwise, return -ENOENT.
>>>  */
>>> int get_ua_state_por_el0(struct user_access_state *uas, u64 *por_el0);
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>> I did get a feeling having helpers would be a good idea. I wonder if
>> getters/setters aren't a bit overkill though, as they make accesses to
>> the struct more cumbersome and we'd need a pair for every member (unless
>> we use some macro magic).
> We only have one struct member, so it's probably fine for now, and we
> could group related members together in sub-structures to help in future.
> But it's up to you -- I don't feel strongly about it, but requiring the
> caller to update the flag manually is going to be a bug magnet.
>
>> Maybe it would be sufficient to have say
>> ua_state_has_field(POR_EL0) to check if the bit is set, and
>> ua_state_set_field_valid(POR_EL0) to set the bit?
> I don't think that really helps with my concern. I'd like to avoid callers
> having to remember to deal with the flags when they update the data.

Got it. I can't think of a better way to do this so I'll just go ahead
with your suggestion, and prefix all members of the struct with __ to
make it clear they shouldn't be accessed directly. The macro magic can
wait until we have more than one struct member ;)

I've also reconsidered setup_sigframe() and realised using valid_fields
there is not a great idea, because the record is allocated in
setup_sigframe_layout() based on system_supports_poe(), and leaving a
record uninitialised would be bad™. I'll remove that change and I'll
have preserve_poe_context() fail with a WARN_ON() if
get_ua_state_por_el0() somehow returns an error.

- Kevin