[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YguCysZGYYWUhAPk@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:39:06 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
"open list:PARISC ARCHITECTURE" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:S390" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SPARC + UltraSPARC (sparc/sparc64)"
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] arm64: simplify access_ok()
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@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists