From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:06 +0000
Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH 08/14] arm64: simplify access_ok()
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0NTqK_m7q909d8FN6is8k4_u3zeckC9XOrjEi7kqSvmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220214163452.1568807-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20220214163452.1568807-9-arnd@kernel.org>
 <CAMj1kXHixUFjV=4m3tzfGz7AiRWc-VczymbKuZq7dyZZNuLKxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a2VfvDkueaJNTA9SiB+PFsi_Q17AX+aL46ueooW2ahmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXGkG0KMD2rnKAJc3V7X9LP1grbcHTNYMnj_q4GiYfG2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0NTqK_m7q909d8FN6is8k4_u3zeckC9XOrjEi7kqSvmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <YguCysZGYYWUhAPk@FVFF77S0Q05N>
List-Id: <openrisc.lists.librecores.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:39:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:21 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > arm64 also has this leading up to the range check, and I think we'd no
> > longer need it:
> >
> >     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI) &&
> >         (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD || test_thread_flag(TIF_TAGGED_ADDR)))
> >             addr = untagged_addr(addr);
> 
> I suspect the expensive part here is checking the two flags, as untagged_addr()
> seems to always just add a sbfx instruction. Would this work?
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI
> #define access_ok(ptr, size) __access_ok(untagged_addr(ptr), (size))
> #else // the else path is the default, this can be left out.
> #define access_ok(ptr, size) __access_ok((ptr), (size))
> #endif

This would be an ABI change, e.g. for tasks without TIF_TAGGED_ADDR.

I don't think we should change this as part of this series.

Thanks,
Mark.