# Re: \[PATCH v11 19/39\] arm64/mm: Handle GCS data aborts

- From: Mark Brown \<broonie@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2024-08-22 17:30:59 
- List: linux-arm-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2024/08/289784
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2024/08/289561/t.md

```text
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 06:19:38PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:44:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:12:30PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 02:15:22AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 
> > > > +static bool is_invalid_gcs_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma, u64 esr)
> > 
> > > > +	} else if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK)) {
> > > > +		/* Only GCS operations can write to a GCS page */
> > > > +		return is_write_abort(esr);
> > > > +	}

> > Yes, that should check for a data abort.  I think I'd formed the
> > impression that is_write_abort() included that check somehow.  As you
> > say it's to avoid spinning trying to resolve a permission fault for a
> > write (non-GCS reads to a GCS page are valid), I do think we need the 
> > is_write_abort() since non-GCS reads are valid so something like:
> > 
> > 	if (!esr_is_data_abort(esr))
> > 		return false;
> > 
> > 	return is_write_abort(esr);
> 
> We do need the write abort check but not unconditionally, only if to a
> GCS page (you can have other genuine write aborts).

tThat was to replace the checks in the above case, not the function as a
whole.
```

## Attachments

- [signature.asc](https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2024/08/289784/attachment/0) (application/pgp-signature, 488 bytes)