Re: [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
From: Alexander Potapenko
Date: Thu Jul 14 2022 - 10:29:23 EST
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:14 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 03:12:01PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:22 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add a couple of arch_prctl() handles:
> > >
> > > - ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR enabled LAM. The argument is required number
> > > of tag bits. It is rounded up to the nearest LAM mode that can
> > > provide it. For now only LAM_U57 is supported, with 6 tag bits.
> > >
> > > - ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK returns untag mask. It can indicates where tag
> > > bits located in the address.
> > >
> > Am I right that the desired way to detect the presence of LAM without
> > enabling it is to check that arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK, ...)
> > returns zero?
> Returns -1UL, but yes.
No, I meant the return value of arch_prctl(), but in fact neither
seems to be true.
Right now e.g. for the 5.17 kernel arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK,
&bits) returns -EINVAL regardless of the underlying hardware.
A new kernel with your patches will return 0 and set bits=-1UL on both
non-LAM and LAM-enabled machines. How can we distinguish those?
> > One would expect that `arch_prctl(ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR, 0)`
> > disables tagging for the current process.
> > Shouldn't this workflow be supported as well?
> Is there an use-case for it?
> I would rather keep the interface minimal. We can always add this in the
> future if an use-case comes.
As discussed offline, we don't have a use-case for this yet, so I don't insist.
> Kirill A. Shutemov
Google Germany GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Liana Sebastian
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg