Thread (123 messages) 123 messages, 12 authors, 2018-08-14

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/27] mm: Modify can_follow_write_pte/pmd for shadow stack

From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Date: 2018-07-10 23:37:47
Also in: linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-mm, lkml

On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
There are three possible shadow stack PTE settings:

  Normal SHSTK PTE: (R/O + DIRTY_HW)
  SHSTK PTE COW'ed: (R/O + DIRTY_HW)
  SHSTK PTE shared as R/O data: (R/O + DIRTY_SW)

Update can_follow_write_pte/pmd for the shadow stack.
First of all, thanks for the excellent patch headers.  It's nice to have
that reference every time even though it's repeated.
-static inline bool can_follow_write_pte(pte_t pte, unsigned int flags)
+static inline bool can_follow_write_pte(pte_t pte, unsigned int flags,
+					bool shstk)
 {
+	bool pte_cowed = shstk ? is_shstk_pte(pte):pte_dirty(pte);
+
 	return pte_write(pte) ||
-		((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_dirty(pte));
+		((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_cowed);
 }
Can we just pass the VMA in here?  This use is OK-ish, but I generally
detest true/false function arguments because you can't tell what they
are when they show up without a named variable.

But...  Why does this even matter?  Your own example showed that all
shadowstack PTEs have either DIRTY_HW or DIRTY_SW set, and pte_dirty()
checks both.

That makes this check seem a bit superfluous.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help