From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"kcc@google.com" <kcc@google.com>,
"andreyknvl@gmail.com" <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
"ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
"dvyukov@google.com" <dvyukov@google.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com" <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
"glider@google.com" <glider@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove tags before address check
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:44:40 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220616164440.vw7sqnof6grrmnvl@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yqr4SVMyHRTkc+LN@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:30:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 05:36:43PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 17:35 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > +/*
> > > + * Mask out tag bits from the address.
> > > + *
> > > + * Magic with the 'sign' allows to untag userspace pointer without
> > > any branches
> > > + * while leaving kernel addresses intact.
> >
> > Trying to understand the magic part here. I guess how it works is, when
> > the high bit is set, it does the opposite of untagging the addresses by
> > setting the tag bits instead of clearing them. So:
>
> The magic is really rather simple to see; there's two observations:
>
> x ^ y ^ y == x
>
> That is; xor is it's own inverse. And secondly, xor with 1 is a bit
> toggle.
>
> So if we mask a negative value, we destroy the sign. Therefore, if we
> xor with the sign-bit, we have a nop for positive numbers and a toggle
> for negatives (effectively making them positive, -1, 2s complement
> yada-yada) then we can mask, without fear of destroying the sign, and
> then we xor again to undo whatever we did before, effectively restoring
> the sign.
>
> Anyway, concequence of all this is that LAM_U48 won't work correct on
> 5-level kernels, because the mask will still destroy kernel pointers.
Any objection against this variant (was posted in the thread):
#define untagged_addr(mm, addr) ({ \
u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr); \
s64 sign = (s64)__addr >> 63; \
__addr &= (mm)->context.untag_mask | sign; \
(__force __typeof__(addr))__addr; \
})
?
I find it easier to follow and it is LAM_U48-safe.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-16 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-10 14:35 [PATCHv3 0/8] Linear Address Masking enabling Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 1/8] x86/mm: Fix CR3_ADDR_MASK Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 23:32 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 2/8] x86: CPUID and CR3/CR4 flags for Linear Address Masking Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 3/8] mm: Pass down mm_struct to untagged_addr() Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 23:33 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-17 15:27 ` Alexander Potapenko
2022-06-17 22:38 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 4/8] x86/mm: Handle LAM on context switch Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 23:55 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-15 15:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-16 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 16:40 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-17 15:35 ` Alexander Potapenko
2022-06-17 22:39 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-28 23:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-29 0:34 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-30 1:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove tags before address check Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-13 17:36 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-15 16:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-15 19:06 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-16 9:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 16:44 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2022-06-17 11:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-17 14:22 ` H.J. Lu
2022-06-17 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 16:48 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-28 23:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-29 0:42 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-30 2:38 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-07-05 0:13 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 15:25 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-10 18:04 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 16:16 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-10 18:06 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 18:08 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-10 22:18 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-11 1:12 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-11 2:36 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-12 21:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-16 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-16 16:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-30 2:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-13 14:42 ` Michal Hocko
2022-06-16 17:05 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-19 23:40 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-16 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-28 23:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-06-29 0:53 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-30 2:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-07-01 15:38 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-07-02 23:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-07-04 13:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 7/8] x86: Expose untagging mask in /proc/$PID/arch_status Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-10 15:24 ` Dave Hansen
2022-06-11 1:28 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-27 12:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-06-10 14:35 ` [PATCHv3 OPTIONAL 8/8] x86/mm: Extend LAM to support to LAM_U48 Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-16 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-10 20:22 ` [PATCHv3 0/8] Linear Address Masking enabling Kostya Serebryany
2022-06-16 22:52 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-06-16 23:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-06-16 23:48 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220616164440.vw7sqnof6grrmnvl@black.fi.intel.com \
--to=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox