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 08EC4C4332B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:04:54 +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 D379320754 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="ap65yrW2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D379320754 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:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=rCrbXHEWnHRJt5lJl1RZYLXcViZ8R+JnU/wCJFe82Zk=; b=ap65yrW2L+7Om2 r+sY0ugN67E5YrWIqX4V2rI6daEnFVZ54g8jK1TkIaz3SN0sNu8cIxNRl+EiDrBUtv1GpVuDfSs7L XumJRBbMTxXX8ql7CP5LLITOVU9JZHA1AY9y6Y0xmFAtaxgAE2a/Lyx4f0/Mo/3AnajHQWm64FG2r 8CVls7LsI7o7LqieuTfvtovyfjpJcy6PGjEqNKA8Tro8xevlTYGJ3G0kdWPa05ppl6wkNpNYFL8dG svu2Oj17Hb88AnXS1LMPZokZuBXC27h5RnN4T+MtW6Vfw4REVXuPbm2VEe658rcvY5QwBrmwMWn0v jRdpXA8+PP6fVwno+P6Q==; 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 1jFHKW-00029C-Rp; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:04:52 +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 1jFHKU-00028i-Ab for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:04:51 +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 E9AB21FB; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 06:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.37.12.155] (unknown [10.37.12.155]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1B3F3F85E; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 06:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/26] arm64: vdso32: Replace TASK_SIZE_32 check in vgettimeofday To: Catalin Marinas References: <20200317122220.30393-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20200317122220.30393-19-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20200317143834.GC632169@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20200317155031.GD632169@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <83aaf9e1-0a8f-4908-577a-23766541b2ba@arm.com> <20200317174806.GE632169@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <93cfe94a-c2a3-1025-bc9c-e7c3fd891100@arm.com> <20200318183603.GF94111@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <1bc25a53-7a59-0f60-ecf2-a3cace46b823@arm.com> <20200319181004.GA29214@mbp> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:05:14 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200319181004.GA29214@mbp> Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200320_060450_455407_07D6B8DF X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.19 ) 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: Mark Rutland , Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , x86@kernel.org, Russell King , clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, Ingo Molnar , Kees Cook , Arnd Bergmann , Will Deacon , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Collingbourne , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Andrei Vagin , Stephen Boyd , Nick Desaulniers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Salyzyn , Paul Burton 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 Hi Catalin, On 3/19/20 6:10 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Vincenzo, > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:38:42PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> On 3/18/20 6:36 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>> On 3/17/20 5:48 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> So clock_gettime() on arm32 always falls back to the syscall? >>>> >>>> This seems not what you asked, and I think I answered accordingly. Anyway, in >>>> the case of arm32 the error code path is handled via syscall fallback. >>>> >>>> Look at the code below as an example (I am using getres because I know this >>>> email will be already too long, and I do not want to add pointless code, but the >>>> concept is the same for gettime and the others): >>>> >>>> static __maybe_unused >>>> int __cvdso_clock_getres(clockid_t clock, struct __kernel_timespec *res) >>>> { >>>> int ret = __cvdso_clock_getres_common(clock, res); >>>> >>>> if (unlikely(ret)) >>>> return clock_getres_fallback(clock, res); >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> When the return code of the "vdso" internal function returns an error the system >>>> call is triggered. >>> >>> But when __cvdso_clock_getres_common() does *not* return an error, it >>> means that it handled the clock_getres() call without a fallback to the >>> syscall. I assume this is possible on arm32. When the clock_getres() is >>> handled directly (not as a syscall), why doesn't arm32 need the same >>> (res >= TASK_SIZE) check? >> >> Ok, I see what you mean. > > I'm not sure. > Thank you for the long chat this morning. As we agreed I am going to repost the patches removing the checks discussed in this thread and we will address the syscall ABI difference subsequently with a different series. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel