Message ID | 20220712231328.5294-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Linear Address Masking enabling | expand |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:13 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to > 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated > address bits for metadata. > > The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses. > > LAM_U48 enabling is controversial since it competes for bits with > 5-level paging. Its enabling isolated into an optional last patch that > can be applied at maintainer's discretion. I believe having optional patches will put unnecessary burden on distro maintainers. Soon after landing U48 support other changes will start piling on top of it, and it will be impossible to maintain a kernel with this patch removed. It also won't make any difference for the upstream, where this patch will be always present. We'd better decide now whether we need U48 or not, and either keep it or delete it.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 07:39:22PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:13 AM Kirill A. Shutemov > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to > > 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated > > address bits for metadata. > > > > The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses. > > > > LAM_U48 enabling is controversial since it competes for bits with > > 5-level paging. Its enabling isolated into an optional last patch that > > can be applied at maintainer's discretion. > > I believe having optional patches will put unnecessary burden on > distro maintainers. > Soon after landing U48 support other changes will start piling on top > of it, and it will be impossible to maintain a kernel with this patch > removed. > It also won't make any difference for the upstream, where this patch > will be always present. > > We'd better decide now whether we need U48 or not, and either keep it > or delete it. Dave, Andy, any position on this? I wrote LAM_U48 support to prove that interface is flexible enough, but I see why it can be a problem if a distro will pick them up ahead of upstream.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:59 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 07:39:22PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:13 AM Kirill A. Shutemov > > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to > > > 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated > > > address bits for metadata. > > > > > > The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses. For what it's worth, there's an LLVM bot running basic HWASan tests on QEMU with the latest LAM patches here: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/169 So far the bot is happy, giving us some sense of LAM_U57 support being sane. I'll add some tags to individual patches.
On 7/19/22 17:59, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > Dave, Andy, any position on this? > > I wrote LAM_U48 support to prove that interface is flexible enough, but I > see why it can be a problem if a distro will pick them up ahead of > upstream. My position is that maintaining distro forks is troublesome. If you held a gun to my head today and made me merge *something* I'd leave out the U48 patch, but reserve the right to add it later. I'm not sure whether that makes the distros lives easier or harder. I'm not promising anything either way, though.