On 15/10/2024 17:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> We also still need to resolve Kevin's concern, which probably means
>> keeping the thread's original POR around someplace.
> If we fail to allocate context for POR_EL0 (or anything else), we'll
> deliver a SIGSEGV. I think it's quite likely that the SI
On 15/10/2024 14:25, Joey Gouly wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Kevin, Joey,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Looking a little more at this, I think we have quite a weird behaviour
> > > on arm64 as it stands. It lo
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Kevin, Joey,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Se
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 01:25:29PM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > if (system_supports_poe() && err == 0 && user->poe_offset) {
> > ...
> > which gives the wrong impression that the POR is somehow optional, even
> > if th
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:41:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Kevin, Joey,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Se
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Kevin, Joey,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > > > On 22/08/202
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Looking a little more at this, I think we have quite a weird behaviour
> > on arm64 as it stands. It looks like we rely on the signal frame to hold
> > the original POR_EL
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Kevin, Joey,
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > > On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > > > @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void set
Kevin, Joey,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:43:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> > On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > > @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > > struct k_sigaction *ka,
> > >
Hi Kevin,
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct
> > k_sigaction *ka,
> > sme_smstop();
> > }
> >
> > + if (system_supports_poe())
>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> > @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct
> > k_sigaction *ka,
> > sme_smstop();
> > }
> >
> > + if (system_supports_poe())
> > +
On 22/08/2024 17:11, Joey Gouly wrote:
> @@ -1178,6 +1237,9 @@ static void setup_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct
> k_sigaction *ka,
> sme_smstop();
> }
>
> + if (system_supports_poe())
> + write_sysreg_s(POR_EL0_INIT, SYS_POR_EL0);
At the point where setu
Add PKEY support to signals, by saving and restoring POR_EL0 from the
stackframe.
Signed-off-by: Joey Gouly
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Will Deacon
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown
Acked-by: Szabolcs Nagy
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual
---
arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/sigco
14 matches
Mail list logo
