Re: [PATCH v15 00/17] arm64: untag user pointers passed to the kernel

Andrey Konovalov
2019-05-31T14:29:24Z

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:15 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:14:45PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > Thanks for a lot of valuable input! I've read through all the replies
> > and got somewhat lost. What are the changes I need to do to this
> > series?
> >
> > 1. Should I move untagging for memory syscalls back to the generic
> > code so other arches would make use of it as well, or should I keep
> > the arm64 specific memory syscalls wrappers and address the comments
> > on that patch?
>
> Keep them generic again but make sure we get agreement with Khalid on
> the actual ABI implications for sparc.

OK, will do. I find it hard to understand what the ABI implications
are. I'll post the next version without untagging in brk, mmap,
munmap, mremap (for new_address), mmap_pgoff, remap_file_pages, shmat
and shmdt.

>
> > 2. Should I make untagging opt-in and controlled by a command line argument?
>
> Opt-in, yes, but per task rather than kernel command line option.
> prctl() is a possibility of opting in.

OK. Should I store a flag somewhere in task_struct? Should it be
inheritable on clone?

>
> > 3. Should I "add Documentation/core-api/user-addresses.rst to describe
> > proper care and handling of user space pointers with untagged_addr(),
> > with examples based on all the cases seen so far in this series"?
> > Which examples specifically should it cover?
>
> I think we can leave 3 for now as not too urgent. What I'd like is for
> Vincenzo's TBI user ABI document to go into a more common place since we
> can expand it to cover both sparc and arm64. We'd need an arm64-specific
> doc as well for things like prctl() and later MTE that sparc may support
> differently.

OK.

>
> --
> Catalin