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:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 03:59:50 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@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 Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 00/13] Linear Address Masking enabling
Message-ID: <20220720005950.fonulr4kkwbh6kbz@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220712231328.5294-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <CAG_fn=WR3s3UMh76+bibN0nUpZk9AS_M18=oxP+pc_vtqKt34A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=WR3s3UMh76+bibN0nUpZk9AS_M18=oxP+pc_vtqKt34A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 07:39:22PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:13 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > LAM_U48 enabling is controversial since it competes for bits with
> > 5-level paging. Its enabling isolated into an optional last patch that
> > can be applied at maintainer's discretion.
> 
> I believe having optional patches will put unnecessary burden on
> distro maintainers.
> Soon after landing U48 support other changes will start piling on top
> of it, and it will be impossible to maintain a kernel with this patch
> removed.
> It also won't make any difference for the upstream, where this patch
> will be always present.
> 
> We'd better decide now whether we need U48 or not, and either keep it
> or delete it.

Dave, Andy, any position on this?

I wrote LAM_U48 support to prove that interface is flexible enough, but I
see why it can be a problem if a distro will pick them up ahead of
upstream.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov