From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
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 57FDAC433EF
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id DDB236B0078; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:39:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id D641A6B007B; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:39:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id C04066B007D; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:39:18 -0500 (EST)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0193.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.193])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB3F6B0078
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:39:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251])
	by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B730180AD837
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 79144667196.09.DCAFC26
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
	by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65F9100003
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E1E13D5;
	Tue, 15 Feb 2022 02:39:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FVFF77S0Q05N (unknown [10.57.89.144])
	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B7AE3F66F;
	Tue, 15 Feb 2022 02:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:06 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>, Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Nick Hu <nickhu@andestech.com>, Greentime Hu <green.hu@gmail.com>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>,
	Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE" <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
	"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
	"open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
	Openrisc <openrisc@lists.librecores.org>,
	"open list:PARISC ARCHITECTURE" <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:S390" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SPARC + UltraSPARC (sparc/sparc64)" <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" <linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] arm64: simplify access_ok()
Message-ID: <YguCysZGYYWUhAPk@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20220214163452.1568807-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20220214163452.1568807-9-arnd@kernel.org>
 <CAMj1kXHixUFjV=4m3tzfGz7AiRWc-VczymbKuZq7dyZZNuLKxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a2VfvDkueaJNTA9SiB+PFsi_Q17AX+aL46ueooW2ahmQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXGkG0KMD2rnKAJc3V7X9LP1grbcHTNYMnj_q4GiYfG2pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0NTqK_m7q909d8FN6is8k4_u3zeckC9XOrjEi7kqSvmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0NTqK_m7q909d8FN6is8k4_u3zeckC9XOrjEi7kqSvmg@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com;
	dkim=none;
	spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of mark.rutland@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mark.rutland@arm.com;
	dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com
X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07
X-Rspam-User: 
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D65F9100003
X-Stat-Signature: 7hnkjwhjfr751yf7z9jznz9915mstr46
X-HE-Tag: 1644921557-291751
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: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:39:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:21 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > arm64 also has this leading up to the range check, and I think we'd no
> > longer need it:
> >
> >     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI) &&
> >         (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD || test_thread_flag(TIF_TAGGED_ADDR)))
> >             addr = untagged_addr(addr);
> 
> I suspect the expensive part here is checking the two flags, as untagged_addr()
> seems to always just add a sbfx instruction. Would this work?
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI
> #define access_ok(ptr, size) __access_ok(untagged_addr(ptr), (size))
> #else // the else path is the default, this can be left out.
> #define access_ok(ptr, size) __access_ok((ptr), (size))
> #endif

This would be an ABI change, e.g. for tasks without TIF_TAGGED_ADDR.

I don't think we should change this as part of this series.

Thanks,
Mark.