On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 18:23, Steven Price wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2020 07:31, Haibo Xu wrote:
> [...]
> > Hi Steve,
>
> Hi Haibo
>
> > I have finished verifying the POC on a FVP setup, and the MTE test case can
> > be migrated from one VM to another successfully. Since the test case is very
> >
On 16/12/2020 07:31, Haibo Xu wrote:
[...]
Hi Steve,
Hi Haibo
I have finished verifying the POC on a FVP setup, and the MTE test case can
be migrated from one VM to another successfully. Since the test case is very
simple which just maps one page with MTE enabled and does some memory
access,
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:48, Steven Price wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2020 08:25, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Steven Price wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:13, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> On 12/9/20 12:39 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> I would have thought that the best way is to use TCO, so that we don't
> >> have to
> >> have dual mappings (and however many MB of extra page tables that might
> >> imply).
> >
> > The
On 12/9/20 12:39 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> I would have thought that the best way is to use TCO, so that we don't have
>> to
>> have dual mappings (and however many MB of extra page tables that might
>> imply).
>
> The problem appears when the VMM wants to use MTE itself (e.g. linked
>
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:27:59PM -0600, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/9/20 9:27 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:25:18PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> Would this syscall operate on the guest address space? Or on the VMM's
> >> own mapping?
> ...
> > Whatever is
On 12/9/20 9:27 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:25:18PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Would this syscall operate on the guest address space? Or on the VMM's
>> own mapping?
...
> Whatever is easier for the VMM, I don't think it matters as long as the
> host kernel can get
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:25:18PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-12-09 12:44, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 06:21:12PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 2020-12-08 17:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:03:13PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
On 2020-12-09 12:44, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 06:21:12PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-12-08 17:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:03:13PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > I wonder whether we will have to have something kernel side to
> >
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 06:21:12PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-12-08 17:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:03:13PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > I wonder whether we will have to have something kernel side to
> > > dump/reload tags in a way that matches the
On 2020-12-08 17:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:03:13PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:34:05 +,
Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:05:55PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > What I'd really like to see is a description of how shared
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:03:13PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:34:05 +,
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:05:55PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > What I'd really like to see is a description of how shared memory
> > > is, in general, supposed to
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 18:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> On 2020-12-08 09:51, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:48, Steven Price wrote:
> >>
>
> [...]
>
> >> Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
> >> you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 00:44, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>
> * Steven Price (steven.pr...@arm.com) wrote:
> > On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
> > > >
On 2020-12-08 09:51, Haibo Xu wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:48, Steven Price wrote:
[...]
Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself
were to use MTE? My worry is that we end up with MTE in
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:48, Steven Price wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2020 08:25, Haibo Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Steven Price wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:34:05 +,
Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:05:55PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > What I'd really like to see is a description of how shared memory
> > is, in general, supposed to work with MTE. My gut feeling is that
> > it doesn't, and that you
* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> wrote:
> > * Steven Price (steven.pr...@arm.com) wrote:
> > > Sorry, I know I simplified it rather by saying it's similar to protected
> > > VM.
> > > Basically as I see it there are three
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Steven Price (steven.pr...@arm.com) wrote:
> > Sorry, I know I simplified it rather by saying it's similar to protected VM.
> > Basically as I see it there are three types of memory access:
> >
> > 1) Debug case - has to go via a
* Steven Price (steven.pr...@arm.com) wrote:
> On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price wrote:
> > > Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
> > > you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself
>
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:05:55PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-12-07 15:45, Steven Price wrote:
> > On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price
> > > wrote:
> > > > Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the
> > > > update.
On 2020-12-07 15:45, Steven Price wrote:
On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price
wrote:
Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update.
Have
you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself
were to use MTE? My
On 07/12/2020 15:27, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price wrote:
Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself
were to use MTE? My worry is that we end up with MTE in a
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:48, Steven Price wrote:
> Sounds like you are making good progress - thanks for the update. Have
> you thought about how the PROT_MTE mappings might work if QEMU itself
> were to use MTE? My worry is that we end up with MTE in a guest
> preventing QEMU from using MTE
On 04/12/2020 08:25, Haibo Xu wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Steven Price wrote:
On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
This
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 17:51, Steven Price wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
> >>> > This series adds support
* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
> > This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
> > KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the existing
> > user space support already in v5.10-rc1,
On 20/11/2020 09:56, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-11-20 09:50, Steven Price wrote:
On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Does this sound reasonable?
I'll clean up the set_pte_at() change and post a v6 later today.
Please hold on. I still haven't reviewed your v5, nor have I had time
to
On 2020-11-20 09:50, Steven Price wrote:
On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Does this sound reasonable?
I'll clean up the set_pte_at() change and post a v6 later today.
Please hold on. I still haven't reviewed your v5, nor have I had time
to read your reply to my comments on v4.
On 19/11/2020 19:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
> This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
> KVM, allowing KVM guests
On 2020-11-19 18:42, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price
wrote:
> This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
> KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:45:40PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
> > This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
> > KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the existing
> > user space support already in
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:57, Steven Price wrote:
> On 19/11/2020 15:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > I'm a bit dubious about requring the VMM to map the guest memory
> > PROT_MTE unless somebody's done at least a sketch of the design
> > for how this would work on the QEMU side. Currently QEMU just
On 19/11/2020 15:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the existing
user space support already in v5.10-rc1, see [1] for an
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:39, Steven Price wrote:
> This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
> KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the existing
> user space support already in v5.10-rc1, see [1] for an overview.
> The change to require the VMM
This series adds support for Arm's Memory Tagging Extension (MTE) to
KVM, allowing KVM guests to make use of it. This builds on the existing
user space support already in v5.10-rc1, see [1] for an overview.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/834289/
Changes since v4[2]:
* Rebased on v5.10-rc4.
*
36 matches
Mail list logo
