On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 06:42:19PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 07:06:17PM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_LSUI
> > +static bool has_lsui(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> > +{
> > + if (!has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * A CPU that supports LSUI should also support FEAT_PAN,
> > + * so that SW_PAN handling is not required.
> > + */
> > + if (WARN_ON(!__system_matches_cap(ARM64_HAS_PAN)))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> I still find this artificial dependency a bit strange. Maybe one doesn't
> want any PAN at all (software or hardware) and won't get LSUI either
> (it's unlikely but possible).
>
> We have the uaccess_ttbr0_*() calls already for !LSUI, so maybe
> structuring the macros in a way that they also take effect with LSUI.
> For futex, we could add some new functions like uaccess_enable_futex()
> which wouldn't do anything if LSUI is enabled with hw PAN.
Hmm, I forgot that we removed CONFIG_ARM64_PAN for 7.0, so it makes it
harder to disable. Give it a try but if the macros too complicated, we
can live with the additional check in has_lsui().
However, for completeness, we need to check the equivalent of
!system_uses_ttbr0_pan() but probing early, something like:
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN) &&
!__system_matches_cap(ARM64_HAS_PAN)) {
pr_info_once("TTBR0 PAN incompatible with FEAT_LSUI; disabling
FEAT_LSUI");
return false;
}
--
Catalin
