[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25c85740-0119-549e-6ddb-aea69c5efc76@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 10:44:33 +0100
From: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Haibo Xu <Haibo.Xu@....com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest
On 04/05/2021 18:44, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>> On 27/04/2021 18:58, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 04:43:08PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> index 24223adae150..2b85a047c37d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -184,6 +184,20 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_events {
>>>> __u32 reserved[12];
>>>> };
>>>> +struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
>>>> + __u64 guest_ipa;
>>>> + __u64 length;
>>>> + union {
>>>> + void __user *addr;
>>>> + __u64 padding;
>>>> + };
>>>> + __u64 flags;
>>>> + __u64 reserved[2];
>>>> +};
> [...]
>>> Maybe add the two reserved
>>> values to the union in case we want to store something else in the
>>> future.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here. What would the reserved fields be unioned
>> with? And surely they are no longer reserved in that case?
>
> In case you want to keep the structure size the same for future
> expansion and the expansion only happens via the union, you'd add some
> padding in there just in case. We do this for struct siginfo with an
> _si_pad[] array in the union.
>
Ah I see what you mean. In this case "padding" is just a sizer to ensure
that flags is always the same alignment - it's not intended to be used.
As I noted previously though it's completely pointless as this only on
arm64 and even 32 bit Arm would naturally align the following __u64.
reserved[] is for expansion and I guess we could have a union over the
whole struct (like siginfo) but I think it's generally clearer to just
spell out the reserved fields at the end of the struct.
TLDR; the union will be gone along with "padding" in the next version.
"reserved" remains at the end of the struct for future use.
Thanks,
Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists