On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 09:45:05AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 8/1/19 5:38 AM, Kevin Brodsky wrote: > > This patch series only changes what is allowed or not at the syscall > > interface. It does not change the address space size. On arm64, TBI (Top > > Byte Ignore) has always been enabled for userspace, so it has never been > > possible to use the upper 8 bits of user pointers for addressing. > > Oh, so does the address space that's available already chop that out? Yes. Currently the hardware only supports 52-bit virtual addresses. It could be expanded (though it needs a 5th page table level) to 56-bit VA but it's not currently on our (hardware) plans. Beyond 56-bit, it cannot be done without breaking the software expectations (and hopefully I'll retire before we need this ;)). > > If other architectures were to support a similar functionality, then I > > agree that a common and more generic interface (if needed) would be > > helpful, but as it stands this is an arm64-specific prctl, and on arm64 > > the address tag is defined by the architecture as bits [63:56]. > > It should then be an arch_prctl(), no? I guess you just want renaming SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL() to arch_prctl_tagged_addr_ctrl_set()? (similarly for 'get') -- Catalin
