[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+x0qYsO+P=8pQ6N0nRa4y+N3HWTh4sFaUMM63X3q_QbBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:34:37 +0200
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
Christian Koenig <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>, enh <enh@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] uaccess: add noop untagged_addr definition
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:28 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 02:04:47PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > Architectures that support memory tagging have a need to perform untagging
> > (stripping the tag) in various parts of the kernel. This patch adds an
> > untagged_addr() macro, which is defined as noop for architectures that do
> > not support memory tagging. The oncoming patch series will define it at
> > least for sparc64 and arm64.
> >
> > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
> > include/linux/mm.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 0e8834ac32b7..dd0b5f4e1e45 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -99,6 +99,17 @@ extern int mmap_rnd_compat_bits __read_mostly;
> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> > #include <asm/processor.h>
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Architectures that support memory tagging (assigning tags to memory regions,
> > + * embedding these tags into addresses that point to these memory regions, and
> > + * checking that the memory and the pointer tags match on memory accesses)
> > + * redefine this macro to strip tags from pointers.
> > + * It's defined as noop for arcitectures that don't support memory tagging.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef untagged_addr
> > +#define untagged_addr(addr) (addr)
>
> Can you please make this a static inline instead of this macro? Then
> we can actually know what the input/output types are supposed to be.
>
> Is it
>
> static inline unsigned long untagged_addr(void __user *ptr) {return ptr;}
>
> ?
>
> Which would sort of make sense to me.
Hm, I'm not sure. arm64 specifically defines this as a macro that
works on different kinds of pointer compatible types to avoid casting
everywhere it's used:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.1.7/source/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h#L214
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists