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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220622162230.83474-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220622162230.83474-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220622162230.83474-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
From:   Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:12:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=Uo8E-6r3otLPC9iEfO02=A0=zROO8R8TL=8vXVZVE5Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.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 Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:22 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Add a couple of arch_prctl() handles:
>
>  - ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR enabled LAM. The argument is required number
>    of tag bits. It is rounded up to the nearest LAM mode that can
>    provide it. For now only LAM_U57 is supported, with 6 tag bits.
>
>  - ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK returns untag mask. It can indicates where tag
>    bits located in the address.
>
Am I right that the desired way to detect the presence of LAM without
enabling it is to check that arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK, ...)
returns zero?

Overall, I think these new arch_prctls should be documented following
the spirit of PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL/PR_GET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL
somewhere.

> +
> +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LAM))
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +
> +       mutex_lock(&mm->context.lock);
> +
> +       /* Already enabled? */
> +       if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask) {
> +               ret = -EBUSY;
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (!nr_bits) {
> +               ret = -EINVAL;

One would expect that `arch_prctl(ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR, 0)`
disables tagging for the current process.
Shouldn't this workflow be supported as well?