linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aBUovySaQN8m8L0w@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 21:19:11 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>,
	will@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, anshuman.khandual@....com,
	joey.gouly@....com, maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
	frederic@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
	hardevsinh.palaniya@...iconsignals.io,
	shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, huangxiaojia2@...wei.com,
	mark.rutland@....com, samuel.holland@...ive.com,
	palmer@...osinc.com, charlie@...osinc.com,
	thiago.bauermann@...aro.org, bgray@...ux.ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, puranjay@...nel.org,
	yang@...amperecomputing.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
	joel.granados@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nd@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY

On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:03:02AM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 10:37 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:34:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 10.04.25 10:07, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
> > > > opeartion only.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
> > > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > @@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
> > > >   # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK          (0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
> > > >   /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
> > > >   # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT         1
> > > > +/* MTE tag check store only */
> > > > +# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY         (1UL << 19)
> > >
> > > That is the next available bit after PR_MTE_TAG_MASK, correct?
> > >
> > > Would we want to leave some space to grow PR_MTE_TAG_MASK in the future
> > > (could that happen?)?
> >
> > The current mask covers 16 tags (bits 59:56 of a pointer) and given the
> > reluctance to have a tag storage of 4 bits per 16 bytes (3% of RAM), I
> > doubt we'd ever grow this.
> >
> > However, you have a good point, we could indeed leave 32 bits for the
> > tag mask, just in case MTE gets so much traction that someone wants 8
> > bits per tag (and likely a bigger granule than 16 bytes). It doesn't
> > cost us anything to add additional bits from (PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT + 32).
> 
> If it's 8 bits per tag wouldn't the exclusion mask need to be 256
> bits? I probably wouldn't try to anticipate this case since it would
> likely require a different API anyway.

Yep, not sure what I was thinking. So all good with the original patch.

-- 
Catalin