Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp349263yba; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:51:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzNY9/GtDRy8S/Dp4TghwaFI3cJ5KyOeBJdi+h2EXCAJtlqoaEMYBI0qPhV+97ozBkmHeuM X-Received: by 2002:a63:1f52:: with SMTP id q18mr754018pgm.134.1554310302885; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 09:51:42 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1554310302; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=goMpWQIQy463IWusKAlvbqSUyN6dn+HY2rtzrU8Z1ET4FaY/owOkZL1O4iy5skWPJJ LmlqqsvkRm7alvLA2GvGZilRHuvHd+sPKW4HzXaRsWhft2xkCFm1MSnIEe2Hd7vgptGf 5uzDeL7VtZvjxXDQisgENREq2qWV7BR0OhWryj/uvYhW3VP7IRCVzWR5h3IPSGVKmAw5 Ad5JxprQlCL3mEHChQxLbNe25mL1Z+JYr7p1JF9/Qjhh+eeZ7JaqLtQr4v6xGnmjMblE dJaqL5Ugo6ZL/aYjCZZdiYUm4/yJHUFBibdUVOKFNswQx4sv1gr6I2KhrwQMrFhFzbM8 E9Dw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=VtmjDkSXRPG0DHAbSkfLMIqT1ZnkluWpi4HuPbhukUw=; b=dKWJzOpm59gtiiT8ykfEXUCVYUloOCeUTk7/Titwbt/m9bXMgXehinfPBtiDi5fq0B DjJE8MPETYacwRQSSmqJNvIOEGYXXhpaRVCP8lQ4LPZQfikjYOmstuscEwF6WO7wuq/n UsImzyBswXy4sAgYvQDZJj95THdlFydOkukPHaJJ2U4aOgQMsDnM520IbKwmwHegqNQK 9W2s7ZIpoQaDq0Q0enYTDgY4Dxh/w4W250BXLzIRduAO4DOKtuGyPSeUbGu6L7/xHgGy 80xa0oFyBQSrnRkgrL4Zwn0PXpnk46KD7uEDDuNuibRYru1Zgp6fY8O0KUZo2U4ObuZX tUHw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f65si14463004pff.195.2019.04.03.09.51.26; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 09:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726462AbfDCQul (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:50:41 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44894 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726074AbfDCQul (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:50:41 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04F880D; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arrakis.emea.arm.com (arrakis.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.78]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 728023F68F; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:50:31 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Kevin Brodsky Cc: Vincenzo Frascino , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrew Morton , Andrey Konovalov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Branislav Rankov , Chintan Pandya , Daniel Borkmann , Dave Martin , "David S. Miller" , Dmitry Vyukov , Eric Dumazet , Evgeniy Stepanov , Graeme Barnes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Jacob Bramley , Kate Stewart , Kees Cook , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Kostya Serebryany , Lee Smith , Luc Van Oostenryck , Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Robin Murphy , Ruben Ayrapetyan , Shuah Khan , Steven Rostedt , Szabolcs Nagy , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/elf_at_flags.txt Message-ID: <20190403165031.GE34351@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: <20190318163533.26838-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20190318163533.26838-3-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <859341c2-b352-e914-312a-d3de652495b6@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <859341c2-b352-e914-312a-d3de652495b6@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:52:49PM +0000, Kevin Brodsky wrote: > On 18/03/2019 16:35, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > +2. Features exposed via AT_FLAGS > > +-------------------------------- > > + > > +bit[0]: ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI > > + > > + On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been always enabled on the arm64 > > + kernel, hence the userspace (EL0) is allowed to set a non-zero value > > + in the top byte but the resulting pointers are not allowed at the > > + user-kernel syscall ABI boundary. > > + When bit[0] is set to 1 the kernel is advertising to the userspace > > + that a relaxed ABI is supported hence this type of pointers are now > > + allowed to be passed to the syscalls, when these pointers are in > > + memory ranges privately owned by a process and obtained by the > > + process in accordance with the definition of "valid tagged pointer" > > + in paragraph 3. > > + In these cases the tag is preserved as the pointer goes through the > > + kernel. Only when the kernel needs to check if a pointer is coming > > + from userspace an untag operation is required. > > I would leave this last sentence out, because: > 1. It is an implementation detail that doesn't impact this user ABI. > 2. It is not entirely accurate: untagging the pointer may be needed for > various kinds of address lookup (like finding the corresponding VMA), at > which point the kernel usually already knows it is a userspace pointer. I fully agree, the above paragraph should not be part of the user ABI document. > > +3. ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI > > +----------------------------- > > + > > +From the kernel syscall interface prospective, we define, for the purposes > > +of this document, a "valid tagged pointer" as a pointer that either it has > > +a zero value set in the top byte or it has a non-zero value, it is in memory > > +ranges privately owned by a userspace process and it is obtained in one of > > +the following ways: > > + - mmap() done by the process itself, where either: > > + * flags = MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS > > + * flags = MAP_PRIVATE and the file descriptor refers to a regular > > + file or "/dev/zero" > > + - a mapping below sbrk(0) done by the process itself > > I don't think that's very clear, this doesn't say how the mapping is > obtained. Maybe "a mapping obtained by the process using brk() or sbrk()"? I think what we mean here is anything in the "[heap]" section as per /proc/*/maps (in the kernel this would be start_brk to brk). > > + - any memory mapped by the kernel in the process's address space during > > + creation and following the restrictions presented above (i.e. data, bss, > > + stack). > > With the rules above, the code section is included as well. Replacing "i.e." > with "e.g." would avoid having to list every single section (which is > probably not a good idea anyway). We could mention [stack] explicitly as that's documented in the Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt and it's likely considered ABI already. The code section is MAP_PRIVATE, and can be done by the dynamic loader (user process), so it falls under the mmap() rules listed above. I guess we could simply drop "done by the process itself" here and allow MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS or MAP_PRIVATE of regular file. This would cover the [heap] and [stack] and we won't have to debate the brk() case at all. We probably mention somewhere (or we should in the tagged pointers doc) that we don't support tagged PC. -- Catalin