Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1597425745.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <ec314a9589ef8db18494d533b6eaf1fd678dc010.1597425745.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <20200827103819.GE29264@gaia> <8affcfbe-b8b4-0914-1651-368f669ddf85@arm.com>
 <20200827121604.GL29264@gaia> <CAAeHK+yYEFHAQMxhL=uwfgaejo3Ld0gp5=ss38CjW6wyYCaZFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200908153910.GK25591@gaia>
In-Reply-To: <20200908153910.GK25591@gaia>
From:   Derrick McKee <derrick.mckee@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:41:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJoBWHy9=hJ-GCCYjUm2=HKOiHbue2cXO1TBNx0LsCQKAqO02A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/35] arm64: mte: Switch GCR_EL1 in kernel entry and exit
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Elena Petrova <lenaptr@google.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@arm.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

Is the branch where the MTE patches currently are being applied
for-net/mte?  It looks like that's the place, but I want to confirm.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:42 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 04:02:06PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:56:49AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > > > On 8/27/20 11:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > > > >> index 7717ea9bc2a7..cfac7d02f032 100644
> > > > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > > > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > > > >> @@ -18,10 +18,14 @@
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  #include <asm/barrier.h>
> > > > >>  #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> > > > >> +#include <asm/kasan.h>
> > > > >> +#include <asm/kprobes.h>
> > > > >>  #include <asm/mte.h>
> > > > >>  #include <asm/ptrace.h>
> > > > >>  #include <asm/sysreg.h>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +u64 gcr_kernel_excl __read_mostly;
> > > > >
> > > > > Could we make this __ro_after_init?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it makes sense, it should be updated only once through mte_init_tags().
> > > >
> > > > Something to consider though here is that this might not be the right approach
> > > > if in future we want to add stack tagging. In such a case we need to know the
> > > > kernel exclude mask before any C code is executed. Initializing the mask via
> > > > mte_init_tags() it is too late.
> > >
> > > It depends on how stack tagging ends up in the kernel, whether it uses
> > > ADDG/SUBG or not. If it's only IRG, I think it can cope with changing
> > > the GCR_EL1.Excl in the middle of a function.
> > >
> > > > I was thinking to add a compilation define instead of having gcr_kernel_excl in
> > > > place. This might not work if the kernel excl mask is meant to change during the
> > > > execution.
> > >
> > > A macro with the default value works for me. That's what it basically is
> > > currently, only that it ends up in a variable.
> >
> > Some thoughts on the topic: gcr_kernel_excl is currently initialized
> > in mte_init_tags() and depends on the max_tag value dynamically
> > provided to it, so it's not something that can be expressed with a
> > define. In the case of KASAN the max_tag value is static, but if we
> > rely on that we make core MTE code depend on KASAN, which doesn't seem
> > right from the design perspective.
>
> The design is debatable. If we want MTE to run on production devices, we
> either (1) optimise out some bits of KASAN (configurable) or (2) we
> decouple MTE and KASAN completely and add new callbacks in the core code
> (slab allocator etc.) specific to MTE.
>
> My first choice is (1), unless there is a strong technical argument why
> it is not possible.
>
> --
> Catalin
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel


-- 
Derrick McKee
Phone: (703) 957-9362
Email: derrick.mckee@gmail.com