On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:04 PM Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:34:56AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:46:59AM -0500, guoren@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When the task is in COMPAT mode, the arch_get_mmap_end should be 2GB,
> > > not TASK_SIZE_64. The TASK_SIZE has contained is_compat_mode()
> > > detection, so change the definition of STACK_TOP_MAX to TASK_SIZE
> > > directly.
> >
> > ok
> >
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: add2cc6b6515 ("RISC-V: mm: Restrict address space for sv39,sv48,sv57")
> > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h | 6 ++----
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
> > > index f19f861cda54..1f538fc4448d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
> > > @@ -16,15 +16,13 @@
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > > #define DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW (UL(1) << (MMAP_VA_BITS - 1))
> > > -#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE_64
> > > +#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE
> >
> > It means STACK_TOP_MAX will be in 64BIT:
> > - TASK_SIZE_32 if compat_mode=y
> > - TASK_SIZE_64 if compat_mode=n
> >
> > Makes sense for me.
> >
> > >
> > > #define arch_get_mmap_end(addr, len, flags) \
> > > ({ \
> > > unsigned long mmap_end; \
> > > typeof(addr) _addr = (addr); \
> > > - if ((_addr) == 0 || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPAT) && is_compat_task())) \
> > > - mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX; \
> > > - else if ((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV57) \
> > > + if ((_addr) == 0 || (_addr) >= VA_USER_SV57) \
> > > mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX; \
> > > else if ((((_addr) >= VA_USER_SV48)) && (VA_BITS >= VA_BITS_SV48)) \
> > > mmap_end = VA_USER_SV48; \
> >
> >
> > I don't think I got this change, or how it's connected to the commit msg.
> >
> > Before:
> > - addr == 0, or addr > 2^57, or compat: mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX
> > - 2^48 < addr < 2^57: mmap_end = 2^48
> > - 0 < addr < 2^48 : mmap_end = 2^39
> >
> > Now:
> > - addr == 0, or addr > 2^57: mmap_end = STACK_TOP_MAX
> > - 2^48 < addr < 2^57: mmap_end = 2^48
> > - 0 < addr < 2^48 : mmap_end = 2^39
> >
> > IIUC compat mode addr will be < 2^32, so will always have mmap_end = 2^39
> > if addr != 0. Is that desireable?
> > (if not, above change is unneeded)
>
> I agree, this change does not make sense for compat mode. Compat mode
> should never return an address that is greater than 2^32, but this
> change allows that.
#define STACK_TOP_MAX TASK_SIZE
#define TASK_SIZE (is_compat_task() ? TASK_SIZE_32 : TASK_SIZE_64)
So, this change limits an address in 2^32 for compat mode, and your
patch broke the rule. So that is why we need this patch to fix up.
>
> >
> > Also, unrelated to the change:
> > - 2^48 < addr < 2^57: mmap_end = 2^48
> > Is the above correct?
> > It looks like it should be 2^57 instead, and a new if clause for
> > 2^32 < addr < 2^48 should have mmap_end = 2^48.
>
> That is not the case. I documented this behavior and reasoning in
> Documentation/arch/riscv/vm-layout.rst in the "Userspace VAs" section.
>
> I can reiterate here though. The hint address to mmap (defined here as
> "addr") is the maximum userspace address that mmap should provide. What
> you are describing is a minimum. The purpose of this change was to allow
> applications that are not compatible with a larger virtual address (such
> as applications like Java that use the upper bits of the VA to store
> data) to have a consistent way of specifying how many bits they would
Yes, I agree with this change and use Zjpm with PLEN=48 to optimize
them in the future.
> like to be left free in the VA. This requires to take the next lowest
> address space to guaruntee that all of the most-significant bits left
> clear in hint address do not end up populated in the virtual address
> returned by mmap.
>
> - Charlie
>
> >
> > Do I get it wrong?
> >
> > (I will send an RFC 'fixing' the code the way I am whinking it should look
> > like)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > 2.40.1
> > >
> >
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
