From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8E7C54734 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9CFDA6B007B; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 980486B0082; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:02:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 848246B0083; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:02:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F1E6B007B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A60141880 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:02:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82497888060.30.DD883B2 Received: from nyc.source.kernel.org (nyc.source.kernel.org [147.75.193.91]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B726180022 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=Gpf8ddOX; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of will@kernel.org designates 147.75.193.91 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=will@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1724760104; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=doTT/giOsYQ9TWWUAWS2pc4Q/LZ/pA50DLcr00bWSyQiGLZEVhASpAg0Bn1h1kO0NaM1jG qYYJnJQZrCNd29OOiVryRVyl9tLApejtsDXNDAMP7s1pZZG9SuklW8CySIXspW6xc+UfLU adUVNQ5SXwSGxlHfK0Z2OcsVqoqWybs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=Gpf8ddOX; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of will@kernel.org designates 147.75.193.91 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=will@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=kernel.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1724760104; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=/MLTjT4x0wpquiwumNovnGAf81Tdfup2rLk7uUNGOds=; b=DDV0n7ZXCZ1ZMM70AVkcdGzcEgsPav2qD/SroBY59TVs4rUV7Ni6CbKfB0qoxKrmYpraVG FpjQVqGIxnNOZ9InyRp0FGIR86yWIYZkcNfLEVRkrowIvzxAvK7Z5Jtfc0y0nh+dXmTq5W UI+xPMpLH6wpVgdmnIK9+drMG2Po9fE= Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by nyc.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81A1A41943; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:02:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60A82C582AB; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:38:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724758692; bh=2+A2bF7Lj9wuQUwEpvgzmZKK3imkhu2KCOi7wnoixak=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Gpf8ddOXDK2vLQMMp3FzmG/a/m/kr0GXzqv0V69de1kGXjsWZZVM5il9nZ3rJgJ/C HhCk9FpXwrs24xGKZufPQ6AVtvbP5tMYwDBYGmyjXUFSAs0/qqunKiRjR5cHaGfdBj NELnVGfuXrKZce7YLlJBXHfzEBMziXjXhbc2oCx/U/canba16aHthF+qGabnfRBtoM BP6yHu6nKpM6xKRbubnCGD2Di4NReNtwAwTcMpZZI8xnW+1KjwLJ14ftgHU2j0y4CR 5qpdVZJYRS0/PkwK6KW2GK7c8ijyUvbxdWydqc2U6Yg0gjukfhNJnDfFkqe+yURXpL dMagJjNp/hQXA== Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 12:38:04 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Joey Gouly , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, nd@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, bp@alien8.de, broonie@kernel.org, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev, shuah@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/30] arm64: context switch POR_EL0 register Message-ID: <20240827113803.GB4318@willie-the-truck> References: <20240822151113.1479789-1-joey.gouly@arm.com> <20240822151113.1479789-7-joey.gouly@arm.com> <20240823144531.GH32156@willie-the-truck> <20240823170835.GA1181@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Stat-Signature: g7egs5dkuo68nkzmjjns67mmowkbcb6x X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1B726180022 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-HE-Tag: 1724760147-598680 X-HE-Meta: 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 4sOuv+vg 8LGEkoMWWlclopOiZ6/hOPP7jnHk0u+Khbu+Ts+il0TYJYfiyeq21LICAsHOmn+CMlABEWmjVRxMx9TkJaHgW3OFwVqzunmfoIful38b/W9YgZY2TCKbFgWPm9QQte64p/+hYH6ZRzxng+xI3leak67umgJJS4FTyKmoYPEMu3sLegMoifhvNV5dQk4ENtwj+lAiQHm++aDC+qNTlsYNBXab/J+UWz33q4iLFRzGUDMZHHjbiKOjcqqGzdw== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 07:40:52PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 05:41:06PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:45:32PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 04:10:49PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote: > > > > > +static void permission_overlay_switch(struct task_struct *next) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + if (!system_supports_poe()) > > > > > + return; > > > > > + > > > > > + current->thread.por_el0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_POR_EL0); > > > > > + if (current->thread.por_el0 != next->thread.por_el0) { > > > > > + write_sysreg_s(next->thread.por_el0, SYS_POR_EL0); > > > > > + /* ISB required for kernel uaccess routines when chaning POR_EL0 */ > > > > > > > > nit: typo "chaning". > > > > > > > > But more substantially, is this just to prevent spurious faults in the > > > > context of a new thread using a stale value for POR_EL0? > > > > > > Not just prevent faults but enforce the permissions from the new > > > thread's POR_EL0. The kernel may continue with a uaccess routine from > > > here, we can't tell. > > > > Hmm, I wondered if that was the case. It's a bit weird though, because: > > > > - There's a window between switch_mm() and switch_to() where you might > > reasonably expect to be able to execute uaccess routines > > I don't think we can have any uaccess between these two switches (a > uaccess could fault, that's a pretty weird state between these two). > > > - kthread_use_mm() doesn't/can't look at this at all > > No, but a kthread would have it's own, most permissive, POR_EL0. > > > - GUP obviously doesn't care > > > > So what do we actually gain by having the uaccess routines honour this? > > I guess where it matters is more like not accidentally faulting because > the previous thread had more restrictive permissions. That's what I wondered initially, but won't the fault handler retry in that case? Will