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:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:39:35 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.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>,
        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-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling
Message-ID: <20220912133935.3bb3e247@jacob-builder>
In-Reply-To: <Yxtk4gMbcVgTKzKg@araj-dh-work>
References: <20220830010104.1282-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
        <YxDvpLb77lwb8zaT@araj-dh-work>
        <20220904003952.fheisiloilxh3mpo@box.shutemov.name>
        <Yxtk4gMbcVgTKzKg@araj-dh-work>
Organization: OTC
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ashok,

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:08:02 +0000, Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@linux.intel.com>
wrote:

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h index a31e27b95b19..e5c04ced36c9
> > 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h
> > @@ -23,5 +23,6 @@
> >  #define ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK		0x4001
> >  #define ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR		0x4002
> >  #define ARCH_GET_MAX_TAG_BITS		0x4003
> > +#define ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR_FORCED	0x4004
> >  
> >  #endif /* _ASM_X86_PRCTL_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > index 337f80a0862f..7d89a2fd1a55 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > @@ -774,7 +774,8 @@ static bool lam_u48_allowed(void)
> >  #define LAM_U48_BITS 15
> >  #define LAM_U57_BITS 6
> >  
> > -static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned
> > long nr_bits) +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct
> > *mm, unsigned long nr_bits,
> > +				    bool forced)
> >  {
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  
> > @@ -793,6 +794,11 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct
> > mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits) goto out;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && !forced) {
I don't think this works since we have lazy pasid free.  for example,
after all the devices did sva_unbind, mm->pasid  we'll remain valid until
mmdrop(). LAM  should be supported in this case.

Perhaps, we could introduce another prctl flag for SVA, PR_GET_SVA?
Both iommu driver and LAM can set/query the flag. LAM applications may not
be the only ones want to know if share virtual addressing is  on.

> > +		ret = -EBUSY;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +

Thanks,

Jacob