linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: mte: Clarify kernel MTE policy and manipulation of TCO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DFTOAG3ZYSFS.PHQA8FL20S6K@utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:44:50 -0600
From: "Taehyun Noh" <taehyun@...xas.edu>
To: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Carl Worth"
 <carl@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc: "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Peter Collingbourne" <pcc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: mte: Clarify kernel MTE policy and
 manipulation of TCO

On Mon Jan 19, 2026 at 12:17 PM CST, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> TBH, I'm fine with leaving the logic in this function without
> introducing a new user_uses_tagcheck() but not strongly opposed to it
> with better naming.
>
> That said, the set_kernel_mte_policy() naming looks too broad. The
> policy somehow implies tag check mode, fault behaviour. All it does is
> dealing with PSTATE.TCO.

I agree with your point. having TCO on the function name is more concise
than what I've suggested. We can drop this patch.