[PATCH v6 5/5] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI

[Catalin Marinas]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:11:02AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 09:38:54AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 08:53:57PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > > why we need to care about the different settings for tag checking when
> > > > > we use uaccess_disable_privileged()?
> > [...]
> > > > > But, although tag check fault happens in kernel side,
> > > > > It seems to be handled by fixup code if user address is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > The user may know it is wrong and not care (e.g. one wants to keep using
> > > > a buggy application).
> > >
> > > Then Does this example -- ignoring wrong and keep using a buggy
> > > application shows us that we need to enable TCO when
> > > we runs the LSUI instruction?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, LSUI instruction also check memory tag -- i.e) ldtadd.
> > > if passed user address which has unmatched tag and if user isn't
> > > interested in tah check, It can meet the unexpected report from KASAN.
> >
> > That's a valid point w.r.t. PSTATE.TCO that applies to copy_to/from_user
> > as well. I don't think we documented it but we don't expect the user
> > PSTATE.TCO state to be taken into account while doing uaccess from the
> > kernel. We do, however, expect SCTLR_EL1.TCF0 to be honoured and that's
> > what the user normally tweaks via a prctl(). The TCO is meant to
> > disable tag checking briefly when TCF enabled the tag check faults.
> 
> So, IMHO, as copy_to/from_user (ldt/sttr) enable tco before it operates,

They don't enable TCO.

-- 
Catalin