[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58f39d58-579e-4dd3-8084-baebf86f1ae0@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 09:14:17 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, guoren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Chris Torek <chris.torek@...il.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-csky@...r.kernel.org" <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-abi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] mm: Add personality flag to limit address to
47 bits
On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 07:17:44AM GMT, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, at 21:15, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > Create a personality flag ADDR_LIMIT_47BIT to support applications
> > that wish to transition from running in environments that support at
> > most 47-bit VAs to environments that support larger VAs. This
> > personality can be set to cause all allocations to be below the 47-bit
> > boundary. Using MAP_FIXED with mmap() will bypass this restriction.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
>
> I think having an architecture-independent mechanism to limit the size
> of the 64-bit address space is useful in general, and we've discussed
> the same thing for arm64 in the past, though we have not actually
> reached an agreement on the ABI previously.
The thread on the original proposals attests to this being rather a fraught
topic, and I think the weight of opinion was more so in favour of opt-in
rather than opt-out.
>
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ enum {
> > WHOLE_SECONDS = 0x2000000,
> > STICKY_TIMEOUTS = 0x4000000,
> > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB = 0x8000000,
> > + ADDR_LIMIT_47BIT = 0x10000000,
> > };
>
> I'm a bit worried about having this done specifically in the
> personality flag bits, as they are rather limited. We obviously
> don't want to add many more such flags when there could be
> a way to just set the default limit.
Since I'm the one who suggested it, I feel I should offer some kind of
vague defence here :)
We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a relatively
straightforward means of achieving the aim (assuming your concern about
arch_get_mmap_end() below isn't a blocker) which has the least impact on
existing code.
Of course we can end up in absurdities where we start doing
ADDR_LIMIT_xxBIT... but again - it's simple, shouldn't represent an
egregious maintenance burden and is entirely opt-in so has things going for
it.
>
> It's also unclear to me how we want this flag to interact with
> the existing logic in arch_get_mmap_end(), which attempts to
> limit the default mapping to a 47-bit address space already.
How does ADDR_LIMIT_3GB presently interact with that?
>
> For some reason, it appears that the arch_get_mmap_end()
> logic on RISC-V defaults to the maximum address
> space for the 'addr==0' case which is inconsistentn with
> the other architectures, so we should probably fix that
> part first, possibly moving more of that logic into a
> shared implementation.
>
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists