On 25/02/2019 18:02, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 25/02/2019 16:57, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:38:31PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
i think these rules work for the cases i care about, a more
tricky question is when/how to check for the new syscall abi
and when/how the TCR_EL1.
On 25/02/2019 16:57, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:38:31PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> i think these rules work for the cases i care about, a more
>> tricky question is when/how to check for the new syscall abi
>> and when/how the TCR_EL1.TBI0 setting may be turned off.
>
Hi Szabolcs,
Thanks for looking into this. Comments below.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:38:31PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> i think these rules work for the cases i care about, a more
> tricky question is when/how to check for the new syscall abi
> and when/how the TCR_EL1.TBI0 setting may be tur
On 12/02/2019 18:02, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:32:55PM -0800, Evgenii Stepanov wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
Really, the kernel should do the expected thing with all "non-weird"
memory.
On 13/02/2019 21:41, Evgenii Stepanov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dave Martin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
(+Cc other people with MTE experience: Branislav, Ruben)
[...]
I'm wondering whether we can piggy-back on existing concepts.
We cou
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dave Martin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > (+Cc other people with MTE experience: Branislav, Ruben)
>
> [...]
>
> > >I'm wondering whether we can piggy-back on existing concepts.
> > >
> > >We could say that recolouring
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> (+Cc other people with MTE experience: Branislav, Ruben)
[...]
> >I'm wondering whether we can piggy-back on existing concepts.
> >
> >We could say that recolouring memory is safe when and only when
> >unmapping of the page or remov
(+Cc other people with MTE experience: Branislav, Ruben)
On 13/02/2019 14:58, Dave Martin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 06:02:24PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:32:55PM -0800, Evgenii Stepanov wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky wrote:
On 19/12/20
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 06:02:24PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:32:55PM -0800, Evgenii Stepanov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > > On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
[...]
> > > > * A single C object should be accessed using
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:32:55PM -0800, Evgenii Stepanov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > Really, the kernel should do the expected thing with all "non-weird"
> > > memory.
> > >
> > > In lieu of a proper definition o
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:28 AM Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:59:38PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:03:38PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas
> >>>
On 19/12/2018 12:52, Dave Martin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:59:38PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:03:38PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
The summary of our internal discussions (mostly between kernel
deve
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:59:38PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:03:38PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas
> > wrote:
> > > The summary of our internal discussions (mostly between kernel
> > > developers) is that we can
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 04:03:38PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > The summary of our internal discussions (mostly between kernel
> > developers) is that we can't properly describe a user ABI that covers
> > future syscalls or syscall
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:02 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 03:23:25PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM Vincenzo Frascino
> > wrote:
> > > On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been set since Linux 3.x hence
> > > the userspace (
Hi Andrey,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 03:23:25PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM Vincenzo Frascino
> wrote:
> > On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been set since Linux 3.x hence
> > the userspace (EL0) is allowed to set a non-zero value in the top
> > byte but the res
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:31 PM Vincenzo Frascino
wrote:
>
> On arm64 the TCR_EL1.TBI0 bit has been set since Linux 3.x 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.
>
> This pa
17 matches
Mail list logo
