Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, May 12 2022 at 21:31, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12 2022 at 19:56, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 05:42:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 11 2022 at 08:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:40AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> > So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on
>>> > it are of limited sustainability?
>>> >
>>> > Any such program simply *cannot* run on 5 level pagetables. Why do we
>>> > want to do this?
>>> 
>>> More bits are better :)
>>> 
>>> Seriously, I agree that restricting it to LAM57, which gives us 6 bits,
>>> makes a lot of sense _and_ makes the whole thing way simpler.
>>> 
>>> So supporting both needs a truly good justification and a real world use
>>> case.
>>
>> I asked the question before[1]. Basically, more bits more better:
>>
>> 	For HWASAN #bits == detection probability.
>> 	For MarkUS #bits == exponential cost reduction
>
> What is MarkUS? It's not really helpful to provide acronyms which are
> not decodable.
>
>> I would really like to have only LAM_U57, but IIUC 6 bits is not always
>> enough.
>>
>> Dmitry, could you elaborate?
>>
>> [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/dvyukov/status/1342019823400837120
>
> I don't know whether he reacts on posting a link to his twitter
> account. I've CC'ed him now. Maybe that works better.

Duh. I should have looked at 'To:' and not only at 'Cc:'

Maybe someday I get used to this email thing.

Thanks,

        tglx