On Thu, May 12 2022 at 10:22, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/10/22 23:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> The feature competes for bits with 5-level paging: LAM_U48 makes it
>>> impossible to map anything about 47-bits. The patchset made these
>>> capability mutually exclusive: whatever used first wins. LAM_U57 can be
>>> combined with mappings above 47-bits.
>> So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on
>> it are of limited sustainability?
>
> I think allowing apps to say, "It's LAM_U48 or bust!" is a mistake.
That'd be outright stupid.
> It's OK for a debugging build that runs on one kind of hardware. But,
> if we want LAM-using binaries to be portable, we have to do something
> different.
>
> One of the stated reasons for adding LAM hardware is that folks want to
> use sanitizers outside of debugging environments. To me, that means
> that LAM is something that the same binary might run with or without.
On/off yes, but is there an actual use case where such a mechanism would
at start time dynamically chose the number of bits?
> It's totally fine with me if the kernel only initially supports LAM_U57.
> But, I'd ideally like to make sure that the ABI can support LAM_U57,
> LAM_U48, AMD's UAI (in whatever form it settles), or other masks.
Sure. No argument here.
Thanks,
tglx
