Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp721333ybi; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWHSOlP02UlMkvYLMHwcp7ftBIbSHZKn/Swkvpsik2ZU83W555RYYp0ebrG++hYpqqSvyR X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:3225:: with SMTP id k34mr3535516pjb.31.1564740700273; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:11:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564740700; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=H3XhebdxzfOwW3U6DpxMgpvQ4tqCPj02DZVqJP8VfEht1XD9jeEA8PJYQ8IkZTMHKB KGjepiwm0z7kd/pPoY8LhTtmbPclWBvChlNSgw4xC54o28jYcKZGvNQW40Y4kexMTijQ 9EQ4yYOT6OGXrfISEpJWAk096sNS3qJBsV487PGdg/iciJYHWJdgHyzg3DOvcJUrGseR 9XKxz1rPFOoE+F27vFkWfihWg1/cXHDz3VCh4V/FCv3JyoG9/tTjbU6YDcm8Ea7foDQq XxNHv3MJMNlBXKAj/cI4HcOGe0ztwK+9NY4BXEUTds/sFw0bXP3mPYIsa4ykaUvZWbRH IolQ== 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=AqewJ3T81UosVhATq5r9DHsuzG0uNfiTZ0GWZ3z4lWM=; b=jgGP+j438oJV4J6xWbkKYEqaShFmlA9Lnm4Q6GWKrQNZX3xbtVw0kFdAB56/6PMPpX 1mLpvzLbpmT7hWoCZRD1Ft+OxCSIZlscBpE5SUa077WgSa/HHiAunr/6Hwvh9n0qE9WM LYr5gUEzTz3+9QgACPL6tm98SG63FUlmAyT+qNdB3C5ubf2+6rrxkly4WmT/Ty+6AdCA zrBa3gaFVo9NB7a9TyVHb7yJ5oa4ZjNIWvAGNjLxQWOZiPzpDmCUc+lCyCyd34MfOHrb QBT5GYNQxlV1Pq0cZxfw1mkNBEyDwSauSPi5Z3vkoYQ6nBpieieGyiWYOtEd2gk3E3DJ iEJw== 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 p35si37268845pgb.484.2019.08.02.03.11.24; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:11:40 -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 S2391093AbfHBKIk (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:08:40 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:48772 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728855AbfHBKIj (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:08:39 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9EB344; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:08:39 -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 B1D323F71F; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:08:35 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Dave Hansen 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, Will Deacon , Andrey Konovalov , Szabolcs Nagy Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/tagged-address-abi.rst Message-ID: <20190802100835.GA4175@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: <20190725135044.24381-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20190725135044.24381-2-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Hi Dave, On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:43:46AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 7/25/19 6:50 AM, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: > > With the relaxed ABI proposed through this document, it is now possible > > to pass tagged pointers to the syscalls, when these pointers are in > > memory ranges obtained by an anonymous (MAP_ANONYMOUS) mmap(). > > I don't see a lot of description of why this restriction is necessary. > What's the problem with supporting MAP_SHARED? We could support MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS (and based on some internal discussions, this would be fine with the hardware memory tagging as well). What we don't want in the ABI is to support file mmap() for top-byte-ignore (or MTE). If you see a use-case, please let us know. -- Catalin