Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 16:23:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 05/10] x86/mm: Provide untagged_addr() helper
Message-ID: <Yn0YdPNG/Q3lf+4G@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220511022751.65540-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220511022751.65540-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <87a6bmx5lt.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87a6bmx5lt.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 03:06:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> #define untagged_addr(addr)	({			\
> 	u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr);		\
> 							\
> 	__addr &= current->thread.lam_untag_mask;	\
> 	(__force __typeof__(addr))__addr;		\
> })
> 
> No conditionals, fast _and_ correct. Setting this untag mask up once
> when LAM is enabled is not rocket science.

But that goes wrong if someone ever wants to untag a kernel address and
not use the result for access_ok().

I'd feel better about something like:

	s64 __addr = (addr);
	s64 __sign = __addr;

	__sign >>= 63;
	__sign &= lam_untag_mask;
	__addr &= lam_untag_mask;
	__addr |= __sign;

	__addr;

Which simply extends bit 63 downwards -- although possibly there's an
easier way to do that, this is pretty gross.