<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version) · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.11786/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.11786/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version) — mentioned by eigenform</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49542501</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2601.11786:49542501</guid><pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:00:51 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s possible to enable reserving the tag memory for MTE via `fastboot oem mte on`, boot a non-stock kernel ignoring arm64.nomte and use MTE. What I&amp;#x27;d like to know is, is it not sufficient to just check the feature bits in ID_AA64PFR1_EL1? (Isn&amp;#x27;t this the first thing you&amp;#x27;d try when trying to determine if the hardware supports some feature?) If they were making the determination solely based on the fact that `arm64.nomte` is being passed to the kernel (or based on what features are exposed by kernel interfaces), it may have been better to say &amp;quot;MTE is seemingly disabled in the current Android…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.11786/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version) — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46977450</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:2601.11786:46977450</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 16:57:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.11786/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version) — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46806618</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:2601.11786:46806618</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 06:39:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;ARM MTE Performance in Practice (Extended Version)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2601.11786/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
