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, 14 Jul 2022 21:12:55 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
 ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
Message-ID: <20220714181255.7aonbyzca3avfylp@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220622162230.83474-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220622162230.83474-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <CAG_fn=Uo8E-6r3otLPC9iEfO02=A0=zROO8R8TL=8vXVZVE5Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220712171445.74b46mgdxgaub3qj@black.fi.intel.com>
 <CAG_fn=VeS7eFq5w0ny2VVe0j4YU4DKyaHDL0-b_VomnYwmDYow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=VeS7eFq5w0ny2VVe0j4YU4DKyaHDL0-b_VomnYwmDYow@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 04:28:36PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:14 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 03:12:01PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Returns -1UL, but yes.
> 
> No, I meant the return value of arch_prctl(), but in fact neither
> seems to be true.
> 
> Right now e.g. for the 5.17 kernel arch_prctl(ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK,
> &bits) returns -EINVAL regardless of the underlying hardware.
> A new kernel with your patches will return 0 and set bits=-1UL on both
> non-LAM and LAM-enabled machines. How can we distinguish those?

With CPUID?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov