On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:02 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:59 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > === Overview
> > > >
> > > > arm64 has a feature called Top Byte Ignore, which allows to embed pointer
> > > > tags into the top byte of each pointer. Userspace programs (such as
> > > > HWASan, a memory debugging tool [1]) might use this feature and pass
> > > > tagged user pointers to the kernel through syscalls or other interfaces.
> > > >
> > > > Right now the kernel is already able to handle user faults with tagged
> > > > pointers, due to these patches:
> > > >
> > > > 1. 81cddd65 ("arm64: traps: fix userspace cache maintenance emulation on a
> > > > tagged pointer")
> > > > 2. 7dcd9dd8 ("arm64: hw_breakpoint: fix watchpoint matching for tagged
> > > > pointers")
> > > > 3. 276e9327 ("arm64: entry: improve data abort handling of tagged
> > > > pointers")
> > > >
> > > > This patchset extends tagged pointer support to syscall arguments.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Do you think this is ready to be merged?
> > >
> > > Should this go through the mm or the arm tree?
> >
> > I would certainly prefer to take at least the arm64 bits via the arm64 tree
> > (i.e. patches 1, 2 and 15). We also need a Documentation patch describing
> > the new ABI.
>
> Sounds good! Should I post those patches together with the
> Documentation patches from Vincenzo as a separate patchset?
Yes, please (although as you say below, we need a new version of those
patches from Vincenzo to address the feedback on v5). The other thing I
should say is that I'd be happy to queue the other patches in the series
too, but some of them are missing acks from the relevant maintainers (e.g.
the mm/ and fs/ changes).
Will
