Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35783-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:31:58 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Edmund Grimley-Evans <edmund.grimley-evans@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64/sve: Remove bitrotted comment about syscall
 behaviour
Message-ID: <991d84b4-e184-4fd6-900f-601f8c31d518@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240122-arm64-sve-sme-doc-v1-0-3d492e45265b@kernel.org>
 <20240122-arm64-sve-sme-doc-v1-1-3d492e45265b@kernel.org>
 <Za/e15zUOEaa1b7d@e133380.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wv42auelfj9rWUAH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Za/e15zUOEaa1b7d@e133380.arm.com>


--Wv42auelfj9rWUAH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:44:23PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:41:51PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > When we documented that we always clear state not shared with FPSIMD we

> Where / when?

In the document that is being modified when it was written.

> > -* In practice the affected registers/bits will be preserved or will be replaced
> > -  with zeros on return from a syscall, but userspace should not make
> > -  assumptions about this.  The kernel behaviour may vary on a case-by-case
> > -  basis.

> This was originally an intentionally conservative statement, to allow
> the kernel the flexibility to relax the register zeroing behaviour in
> the future.  It would have permitted not always disabling a task's SVE
> across a syscall, for example.  There were some concerns about security
> and testability that meant that we didn't use this flexibility to begin
> with.

> If we are making an irrevocable commitment not to use this flexibility
> ever, then this comment can go, but if we're not totally sure then I
> think it would be harmless to keep it (?)

I think everyone except for Catalin had felt that the original
discussion had concluded that there was a commitment to always clear the
non-shared bits and was disappointed to learn that the documentation
said otherwise.  When I tried to take advantage of this as part of
optimising the system call overhead for SVE there were eventually
complaints.

> (Feel free to point me to the relevant past discussion that I may have
> missed.)

See the discussion on my syscall optimisation series:

    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220620124158.482039-8-broonie@kernel.org/

--Wv42auelfj9rWUAH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmWv+A0ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DaTQf/VjPt7AYgYvOmXYGPovG834fzOlz6CVgNxigTvGcW3z+gY79+oinyH3q6
SPl5DS4zSoGVMu1vR41R+l+TdmTCphxjEZIVLmk+wuMommfT+71leHQj4Gr7nNSj
N8R/mUpOe0y4FgGyPvs6ljvso5Cyls6WtTR0j8syqAkRH08f5fnY7piCt1oHaeBm
i0USNyjfJWShZmvsLqw8MSObZMZfZhlkPmIuNbqPbujiAIIybcvBQIevf5rSnUef
NgwBhKTP4+HHBsTcVTOgMphiN5zJBjQnEv/NJlAk6iW7lcxTdbSW4i7luACv2DZs
GWtM3WgGNAQP1pAITjoRPNzzGLOmog==
=I+eN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Wv42auelfj9rWUAH--