Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-50183-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:55:24 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regset: use vmalloc() for regset_get_alloc()
Message-ID: <20240202165524.GD2087318@ZenIV>
References: <20240201171159.1.Id9ad163b60d21c9e56c2d686b0cc9083a8ba7924@changeid>
 <20240202012249.GU2087318@ZenIV>
 <CAD=FV=X5dpMyCGg4Xn+ApRwmiLB5zB0LTMCoSfW_X6eAsfQy8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240202030438.GV2087318@ZenIV>
 <CAD=FV=Wbq7R9AirvxnW1aWoEnp2fWQrwBsxsDB46xbfTLHCZ4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240202034925.GW2087318@ZenIV>
 <20240202040503.GX2087318@ZenIV>
 <CAD=FV=X93KNMF4NwQY8uh-L=1J8PrDFQYu-cqSd+KnY5+Pq+_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240202164947.GC2087318@ZenIV>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240202164947.GC2087318@ZenIV>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 04:49:47PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > +folks from `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c`
> > 
> > Trying to follow the macros to see where "n" comes from is a maze of
> > twisty little passages, all alike. Hopefully someone from the ARM
> > world can help tell if the value of 17474 for n here is correct or if
> > something is wonky.
> 
> It might be interesting to have it print the return value of __regset_get()
> in those cases; if *that* is huge, we really have a problem.  If it ends up
> small enough to fit into few pages, OTOH...
> 
> SVE_VQ_MAX is defined as 255; is that really in units of 128 bits?  IOW,
> do we really expect to support 32Kbit registers?  That would drive the
> size into that range, all right, but it would really suck on context
> switches.
> 
> I could be misreading it, though - the macros in there are not easy to
> follow and I've never dealt with SVE before, so take the above with
> a cartload of salt.

Worse - it's SVE_VQ_MAX is 512; sorry about the confusion.  OK, that would
certainly explain the size (header + 32 registers, each up to 512 * 16 bytes),
but... ouch.