lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: Define Documentation/arm64/elf_at_flags.txt
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:52:49PM +0000, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 18/03/2019 16:35, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > +2. Features exposed via AT_FLAGS
> > +--------------------------------
> > +
> > +bit[0]: ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI
> > +
> > + On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been always enabled on the arm64
> > + kernel, hence the userspace (EL0) is allowed to set a non-zero value
> > + in the top byte but the resulting pointers are not allowed at the
> > + user-kernel syscall ABI boundary.
> > + When bit[0] is set to 1 the kernel is advertising to the userspace
> > + that a relaxed ABI is supported hence this type of pointers are now
> > + allowed to be passed to the syscalls, when these pointers are in
> > + memory ranges privately owned by a process and obtained by the
> > + process in accordance with the definition of "valid tagged pointer"
> > + in paragraph 3.
> > + In these cases the tag is preserved as the pointer goes through the
> > + kernel. Only when the kernel needs to check if a pointer is coming
> > + from userspace an untag operation is required.
>
> I would leave this last sentence out, because:
> 1. It is an implementation detail that doesn't impact this user ABI.
> 2. It is not entirely accurate: untagging the pointer may be needed for
> various kinds of address lookup (like finding the corresponding VMA), at
> which point the kernel usually already knows it is a userspace pointer.

I fully agree, the above paragraph should not be part of the user ABI
document.

> > +3. ARM64_AT_FLAGS_SYSCALL_TBI
> > +-----------------------------
> > +
> > +From the kernel syscall interface prospective, we define, for the purposes
> > +of this document, a "valid tagged pointer" as a pointer that either it has
> > +a zero value set in the top byte or it has a non-zero value, it is in memory
> > +ranges privately owned by a userspace process and it is obtained in one of
> > +the following ways:
> > + - mmap() done by the process itself, where either:
> > + * flags = MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS
> > + * flags = MAP_PRIVATE and the file descriptor refers to a regular
> > + file or "/dev/zero"
> > + - a mapping below sbrk(0) done by the process itself
>
> I don't think that's very clear, this doesn't say how the mapping is
> obtained. Maybe "a mapping obtained by the process using brk() or sbrk()"?

I think what we mean here is anything in the "[heap]" section as per
/proc/*/maps (in the kernel this would be start_brk to brk).

> > + - any memory mapped by the kernel in the process's address space during
> > + creation and following the restrictions presented above (i.e. data, bss,
> > + stack).
>
> With the rules above, the code section is included as well. Replacing "i.e."
> with "e.g." would avoid having to list every single section (which is
> probably not a good idea anyway).

We could mention [stack] explicitly as that's documented in the
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt and it's likely considered ABI
already.

The code section is MAP_PRIVATE, and can be done by the dynamic loader
(user process), so it falls under the mmap() rules listed above. I guess
we could simply drop "done by the process itself" here and allow
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS or MAP_PRIVATE of regular file. This would
cover the [heap] and [stack] and we won't have to debate the brk() case
at all.

We probably mention somewhere (or we should in the tagged pointers doc)
that we don't support tagged PC.

--
Catalin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-03 18:51    [W:0.055 / U:12.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site