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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED52C79FBF for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:52:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=C51BjttrzBuBPjxz7mV6aXgMKNOXlVw0b7lMBT8dULY=; b=WYp4z09xyi5xabN5Eo7ATx+1vP QPmwSCXscU374CapLSu/a+E8qHl/GKwkDh45dxhyES24Sa0JA9U6f7NJ64rAjrkg1u9lj9cpLQR7f 5oOLTXbudq49GXJotsAZvzrjGtVS53bufD27vGtwc05r4K/q9gF20KiIHH6HWdxUw8/HVhKtYagBU s6/Ad/Xk+zZA1bgOtqyqhLdh5JhHmmYS7vBD4/b2OWPlgaBvLoxwyyPf+mc12DT48QtBk+9Wfge+R yNjfex8B6xDE6J38yFjgfZ4C9CdWHYtxZFUq5E5yc9nxRvc4RFxDhN7mPNnrgtJc1d/CuayLGIoxP e3WERisQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x4jt8-0000000FCjM-0Px2; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:52:46 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x4jt4-0000000FChf-1I7v for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 18:52:45 +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 BC7D5237B; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.7.48] (unknown [10.57.7.48]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86D6D3F7B4; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1789066360; bh=PUqmytCxMyQ0ym4c50gS+GVSG7otnsiTkLudKZJwZFI=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Bz0soMG09HJvtLkmBobf5omEFtr8QN+tgX3HtQTv2tYksKKDU+zaetH0QWoNBUjpg 6nmUJBAqQY+V1TISan/OWs2czXHaQxyTL4wBwjziWxdNUBlcp8VyC5HOk9NYrEQSob JAToEZ5TagPEj0oZmxgT6hDFosK7Uj4jO7WPOjrk= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:52:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 1/1] arm64: mm: Handle Granule Protection Faults (GPFs) Content-Language: en-GB To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, pavan.kondeti@oss.qualcomm.com, tabba@google.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sdonthineni@nvidia.com, steven.price@arm.com, gshan@redhat.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev References: <20260907162204.1479401-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20260907162204.1479401-2-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> From: Suzuki K Poulose In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260910_115242_856773_C26910BF X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.80 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 10/09/2026 18:45, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c >> index 0b52557652be6..ad00997b1a873 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c >> @@ -910,6 +910,22 @@ static int do_tag_check_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static int do_gpf_ptw(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs) >> +{ >> + const struct fault_info *inf = esr_to_fault_info(esr); >> + >> + die_kernel_fault(inf->name, far, esr, regs); >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static int do_gpf(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs) >> +{ >> + if (!is_el1_instruction_abort(esr) && fixup_exception(regs, esr)) >> + return 0; >> + >> + return 1; >> +} > > If we end up with a user PC here, we correctly return 1 but only because > fixup_exception() won't find the PC. I'd rather have this explicit with > a user_mode() check. Sure, I have made the condtion to: + if (!user_mode(regs) && !is_el1_instruction_abort(esr) && + fixup_exception(regs, esr)) + return 0; > >> + >> static const struct fault_info fault_info[] = { >> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "ttbr address size fault" }, >> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 1 address size fault" }, >> @@ -946,12 +962,12 @@ static const struct fault_info fault_info[] = { >> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 32" }, >> { do_alignment_fault, SIGBUS, BUS_ADRALN, "alignment fault" }, >> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 34" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 35" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 36" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 37" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 38" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 39" }, >> - { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 40" }, >> + { do_gpf_ptw, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level -1 granule protection fault (translation table walk)" }, >> + { do_gpf_ptw, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 0 granule protection fault (translation table walk)" }, >> + { do_gpf_ptw, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 1 granule protection fault (translation table walk)" }, >> + { do_gpf_ptw, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 2 granule protection fault (translation table walk)" }, >> + { do_gpf_ptw, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 3 granule protection fault (translation table walk)" }, >> + { do_gpf, SIGBUS, SI_KERNEL, "granule protection fault" }, > > For SIGBUS, we should use BUS_OBJERR like we do for do_sea(). Good point, I have added that. > > Otherwise it looks fine to me. Thanks, I have already added the untagged_addr() as reported by Sashiko. > > Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas Cheers Suzuki