Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:48:54 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.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: [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove
 tags before address check
Message-ID: <20220616164854.oyvfpl3tzqj54rd6@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220610143527.22974-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220610143527.22974-6-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <Yqr/qBeIbLZYzgXi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yqr/qBeIbLZYzgXi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:02:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 05:35:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +/*
> > + * Mask out tag bits from the address.
> > + *
> > + * Magic with the 'sign' allows to untag userspace pointer without any branches
> > + * while leaving kernel addresses intact.
> > + */
> > +#define untagged_addr(mm, addr)	({					\
> > +	u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr);				\
> > +	s64 sign = (s64)__addr >> 63;					\
> > +	__addr ^= sign;							\
> > +	__addr &= (mm)->context.untag_mask;				\
> > +	__addr ^= sign;							\
> > +	(__force __typeof__(addr))__addr;				\
> > +})
> 
> Can't we make that mask a constant and *always* unmask U57 irrespective
> of LAM being on?

We can do this if we give up on LAM_U48.

It would also needlessly relax canonical check. I'm not sure it is a good
idea.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov