Re: [PATCH v17 1/1] arm64: mm: Handle Granule Protection Faults (GPFs)

From: Catalin Marinas

Date: Thu Sep 10 2026 - 14:03:02 EST


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.

> +
> 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().

Otherwise it looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>