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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 C5108EEB58D for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4X4Djz0fvSz2yPq; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:50:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1726138231; cv=none; b=CNYKhbVFFpxsKR6A2gJ1eidpNEks/E+nU7n0Ju1kZUV7qtOWsdC0vqHQo0Nkf2VJ4bcwIEu+U1lygzpln9JLfBDjNQLmGuJfI5K3NVzPXuhNVGcJAPFkd5tevFnj0RfAlEfu3mYUpmfhJgPgZSsczHU731qEcKAXbIfQy7ymumb4l3WWFobNWcu4dcX6xKMZ/MNe3V9dLITbw7DOE026Di//7Bk4+Q6ee4picNmEiMXVg0fC0WtnJCH+IIgGBXsY8Z2hp6sYroBhY8PAgs70dMeEQVSX6/gDplOSchjYUQGjmYhcmQAzAplz9pZ/i3H4E8lK6xV8RQjmudhgtABWeg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1726138231; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=ucU8Q63oewK+tuS4kUnV8XmPvKsCRMTocoVPaCv29qI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oobtsf1m7aYC6b/R80wzoj/ikGuI9R0EXe1T7w6e3Xs2l/xdGsaiLMpUKUnxE5LOo5S3acSsARn1QgA48d8i03XKeypoCHPe8Hc3cdxTjmRNa3jaEwvSvRt4wOGfWsloTlVNxEfMeUN2uIliDgec5UiTsM1zcHegvnd0uZZjmAInHNey/Kv1UdOlP8bn57rdNUxo7Gph+QKtTTuTvQpztLCBZgsRKQloUteFp/o9FyVs6/3fiD7rTklDR0+/rO6XmVmfiiszSZvm3biZKSpn0vQ7pbaEtBmYtBj7l6edh3kT+KDoUlTpzrSgeiyFRdCpLNOoONglPNwqeJmDEIyMLA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=JTtjO0Cf; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3; helo=nyc.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=will@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=JTtjO0Cf; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3; helo=nyc.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=will@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org (nyc.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:45d1:ec00::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4X4Djy4Pk4z2yHs for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:50:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DACBA43DB1; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91F63C4CEC3; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:50:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1726138226; bh=qZoGoOh6X8sZEkgedzpNuHuqZxsxfBCZB2KTDdNYKss=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JTtjO0Cfd7tkU1BMgFiga+fsrzZ9RZLla49qSZtD6IB+wb//kcv1pcCBoGV6o4I4m G1wXKo0/D/uODveW0Dj266lXbV6cEBbn8DzNEx7nGus4bUNZK5XKZHYZE/cxZmjguq h9sjj8h+uq8aq6VA2If3DNsj8fEoZ/PZYgilsV1hwIpsBp5q7mQ597FhFm9pCzPsmV WhFLRH7P9gQzrwbFzg4HfakU6ZdPiILkcPais1me+xmBZfigLQXauBvJZx0GqSMgHK M80cWMxsBzCWfU/+AfeLZt9ASKvx0eEt/Pjpfh74bKbs6F0WFUlIRAy7BMaYsMh8C/ HJW6qTM5+QJSg== Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:50:18 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Dave Hansen Cc: Kevin Brodsky , Joey Gouly , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, nd@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, broonie@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/30] arm64: context switch POR_EL0 register Message-ID: <20240912105017.GA22788@willie-the-truck> References: <20240822151113.1479789-1-joey.gouly@arm.com> <20240822151113.1479789-7-joey.gouly@arm.com> <425b8f8c-b6b5-422a-b5f4-41dd2d1ae3bb@arm.com> <6c8ad091-a56b-41ba-b403-2e3c2e578100@intel.com> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c8ad091-a56b-41ba-b403-2e3c2e578100@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Hi Dave, On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:33:54AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 9/11/24 08:01, Kevin Brodsky wrote: > > On 22/08/2024 17:10, Joey Gouly wrote: > >> @@ -371,6 +382,9 @@ int copy_thread(struct task_struct *p, const struct kernel_clone_args *args) > >> if (system_supports_tpidr2()) > >> p->thread.tpidr2_el0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_TPIDR2_EL0); > >> > >> + if (system_supports_poe()) > >> + p->thread.por_el0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_POR_EL0); > > Here we are only reloading POR_EL0's value if the target is a user > > thread. However, as this series stands, POR_EL0 is also relevant to > > kthreads, because any uaccess or GUP done from a kthread will also be > > checked against POR_EL0. This is especially important in cases like the > > io_uring kthread, which accesses the memory of the user process that > > spawned it. To prevent such a kthread from inheriting a stale value of > > POR_EL0, it seems that we should reload POR_EL0's value in all cases > > (user and kernel thread). > > The problem with this is trying to figure out which POR_EL0 to use. The > kthread could have been spawned ages ago and might not have a POR_EL0 > which is very different from the current value of any of the threads in > the process right now. > > There's also no great way for a kthread to reach out and grab an updated > value. It's all completely inherently racy. > > > Other approaches could also be considered (e.g. resetting POR_EL0 to > > unrestricted when creating a kthread), see my reply on v4 [1]. > > I kinda think this is the only way to go. It's the only sensible, > predictable way. I _think_ it's what x86 will end up doing with PKRU, > but there's been enough churn there that I'd need to go double check > what happens in practice. I agree. > Either way, it would be nice to get an io_uring test in here that > actually spawns kthreads: > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/protection_keys.c It would be good to update Documentation/core-api/protection-keys.rst as well, since the example with read() raises more questions than it answers! Kevin, Joey -- I've got this series queued in arm64 as-is, so perhaps you could send some patches on top so we can iron this out in time for 6.12? I'll also be at LPC next week if you're about. Cheers, Will