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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     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 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling
In-Reply-To: <20220511064943.GR76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220511022751.65540-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220511064943.GR76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 17:42:58 +0200
Message-ID: <87pmkivjst.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11 2022 at 08:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:40AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> Hi all. Here's long overdue update on LAM enabling.
>> 
>> # Description #
>> 
>> Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to
>> 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated
>> address bits for metadata.
>> 
>> The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses.
>> 
>> The most sensitive part of enabling is change in tlb.c, where CR3 flags
>> get set. Please take a look that what I'm doing makes sense.
>> 
>> The feature competes for bits with 5-level paging: LAM_U48 makes it
>> impossible to map anything about 47-bits. The patchset made these
>> capability mutually exclusive: whatever used first wins. LAM_U57 can be
>> combined with mappings above 47-bits.
>
> So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on
> it are of limited sustainability?
>
> Any such program simply *cannot* run on 5 level pagetables. Why do we
> want to do this?

More bits are better :)

Seriously, I agree that restricting it to LAM57, which gives us 6 bits,
makes a lot of sense _and_ makes the whole thing way simpler.

So supporting both needs a truly good justification and a real world use
case.

Thanks,

        tglx