1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH v3 0/4] support FEAT_MTE_STORE_ONLY feature
  4. View patch

[PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY

Yeoreum Yun posted 4 patches 8 months, 1 week ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY
Posted by Yeoreum Yun 8 months, 1 week ago 
PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
opeartion only.

Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
---
 include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
@@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
 # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK		(0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
 /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
 # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT		1
+/* MTE tag check store only */
+# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY		(1UL << 19)
 /* RISC-V pointer masking tag length */
 # define PR_PMLEN_SHIFT			24
 # define PR_PMLEN_MASK			(0x7fUL << PR_PMLEN_SHIFT)
-- 
LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY
Posted by David Hildenbrand 7 months, 4 weeks ago 
On 10.04.25 10:07, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
> opeartion only.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> ---
>   include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> @@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
>   # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK		(0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
>   /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
>   # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT		1
> +/* MTE tag check store only */
> +# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY		(1UL << 19)

That is the next available bit after PR_MTE_TAG_MASK, correct?

Would we want to leave some space to grow PR_MTE_TAG_MASK in the future 
(could that happen?)?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY
Posted by Catalin Marinas 7 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:34:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.04.25 10:07, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
> > opeartion only.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > @@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
> >   # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK		(0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
> >   /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
> >   # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT		1
> > +/* MTE tag check store only */
> > +# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY		(1UL << 19)
> 
> That is the next available bit after PR_MTE_TAG_MASK, correct?
> 
> Would we want to leave some space to grow PR_MTE_TAG_MASK in the future
> (could that happen?)?

The current mask covers 16 tags (bits 59:56 of a pointer) and given the
reluctance to have a tag storage of 4 bits per 16 bytes (3% of RAM), I
doubt we'd ever grow this.

However, you have a good point, we could indeed leave 32 bits for the
tag mask, just in case MTE gets so much traction that someone wants 8
bits per tag (and likely a bigger granule than 16 bytes). It doesn't
cost us anything to add additional bits from (PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT + 32).

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin
Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY
Posted by Peter Collingbourne 7 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 10:37 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:34:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 10.04.25 10:07, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
> > > opeartion only.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > @@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
> > >   # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK          (0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
> > >   /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
> > >   # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT         1
> > > +/* MTE tag check store only */
> > > +# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY         (1UL << 19)
> >
> > That is the next available bit after PR_MTE_TAG_MASK, correct?
> >
> > Would we want to leave some space to grow PR_MTE_TAG_MASK in the future
> > (could that happen?)?
>
> The current mask covers 16 tags (bits 59:56 of a pointer) and given the
> reluctance to have a tag storage of 4 bits per 16 bytes (3% of RAM), I
> doubt we'd ever grow this.
>
> However, you have a good point, we could indeed leave 32 bits for the
> tag mask, just in case MTE gets so much traction that someone wants 8
> bits per tag (and likely a bigger granule than 16 bytes). It doesn't
> cost us anything to add additional bits from (PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT + 32).

If it's 8 bits per tag wouldn't the exclusion mask need to be 256
bits? I probably wouldn't try to anticipate this case since it would
likely require a different API anyway.

Peter
Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] prtcl: introduce PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY
Posted by Catalin Marinas 7 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:03:02AM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 10:37 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:34:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 10.04.25 10:07, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY is used to restrict the MTE tag check for store
> > > > opeartion only.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 2 ++
> > > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > index 15c18ef4eb11..83ac566251d8 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
> > > > @@ -244,6 +244,8 @@ struct prctl_mm_map {
> > > >   # define PR_MTE_TAG_MASK          (0xffffUL << PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT)
> > > >   /* Unused; kept only for source compatibility */
> > > >   # define PR_MTE_TCF_SHIFT         1
> > > > +/* MTE tag check store only */
> > > > +# define PR_MTE_STORE_ONLY         (1UL << 19)
> > >
> > > That is the next available bit after PR_MTE_TAG_MASK, correct?
> > >
> > > Would we want to leave some space to grow PR_MTE_TAG_MASK in the future
> > > (could that happen?)?
> >
> > The current mask covers 16 tags (bits 59:56 of a pointer) and given the
> > reluctance to have a tag storage of 4 bits per 16 bytes (3% of RAM), I
> > doubt we'd ever grow this.
> >
> > However, you have a good point, we could indeed leave 32 bits for the
> > tag mask, just in case MTE gets so much traction that someone wants 8
> > bits per tag (and likely a bigger granule than 16 bytes). It doesn't
> > cost us anything to add additional bits from (PR_MTE_TAG_SHIFT + 32).
> 
> If it's 8 bits per tag wouldn't the exclusion mask need to be 256
> bits? I probably wouldn't try to anticipate this case since it would
> likely require a different API anyway.

Yep, not sure what I was thinking. So all good with the original patch.

-- 
Catalin

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.