Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117951-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-332-gdeb4194079-fm-20240319.002-gdeb41940
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <95eb125d-dd54-42f1-b080-938faca6a8a1@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZgHCpgHh1ypSyrtv@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20240313180010.295747-1-samuel.holland@sifive.com>
 <CAHVXubjLWZkjSapnsWJzimWg_2swEy7tQ-DQ6ri8yMk8-Qsc-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <88de4a1a-047e-4be9-b5b0-3e53434dc022@sifive.com>
 <b5624bba-9917-421b-8ef0-4515d442f80b@ghiti.fr>
 <f786e02245424e02b38f55ae6b29d14a@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <d323eb10-c79b-49cb-94db-9b135e6fd280@ghiti.fr>
 <ZgGosOiW6mTeSnTL@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <eeccbc9f-7544-42c9-964f-2b4c924c2b2f@app.fastmail.com>
 <ZgHCpgHh1ypSyrtv@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:38:20 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: "Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>,
 "David Laight" <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
 "Samuel Holland" <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
 "Alexandre Ghiti" <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
 "Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
 "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
 "Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
 "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 "Charlie Jenkins" <charlie@rivosinc.com>, guoren <guoren@kernel.org>,
 "Jisheng Zhang" <jszhang@kernel.org>,
 "Kemeng Shi" <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
 "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
 "Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
 "Xiao W Wang" <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>, "Yangyu Chen" <cyy@cyyself.name>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, at 19:30, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:02:13PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, at 17:39, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>> If an architecture ignores all the top bits of a virtual address,
>> the largest TASK_SIZE would be higher than the smallest (positive,
>> unsigned) PAGE_OFFSET, so you need TASK_SIZE_MAX to be dynamic.
>
> Agreed, but do we even support such architectures within Linux?

Apparently not.

On 32-bit architectures, you often have TASK_SIZE==PAGE_OFFSET,
but not on 64-bit -- either the top few bits in PAGE_OFFSET are
always ones, or the user and kernel page tables are completely
separate.

>> It doesn't look like this is the case on riscv, but I'm not sure
>> about this part.
>
> It looks like riscv is in the same bucket as arm64 and x86 per:
>
>   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/riscv/vm-layout.html
>
> ... which says:
>
> | The RISC-V privileged architecture document states that the 64bit addresses
> | "must have bits 63-48 all equal to bit 47, or else a page-fault exception
> | will occur.": that splits the virtual address space into 2 halves separated
> | by a very big hole, the lower half is where the userspace resides, the upper
> | half is where the RISC-V Linux Kernel resides.

Rihgt. I had even looked in that directory but somehow missed
the vm-layout.rst file.

     Arnd