linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/39] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:45:04 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@...el.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/39] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_COW

On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 22:29 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > There are six bits left available to software in the 64-bit PTE
> > after
> > consuming a bit for _PAGE_COW. No space is consumed in 32-bit
> > kernels
> > because shadow stacks are not enabled there.
> > 
> > This is a prepratory patch. Changes to actually start marking
> > _PAGE_COW
> 
> Unknown word [prepratory] in commit message.
> Suggestions: ['preparatory',

Sorry about all these spelling errors.

> 
> > will follow once other pieces are in place.
> 
> And regardless, you don't really need this sentence at all, AFAICT.
> 
> ...

Ok.

> 
> > +/*
> > + * Normally COW memory can result in Dirty=1,Write=0 PTs. But in
> > the case
>                                                         ^^^
> 
> PTEs.

Thanks.

> 
> > + * of X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK, the software COW bit is used, since
> > the
> > + * Dirty=1,Write=0 will result in the memory being treated as
> > shaodw stack
> > + * by the HW. So when creating COW memory, a software bit is used
> > + * _PAGE_BIT_COW. The following functions pte_mkcow() and
> > pte_clear_cow()
> > + * take a PTE marked conventially COW (Dirty=1) and transition it
> > to the
> 
> Unknown word [conventially] in comment.
> Suggestions: ['conventionally', ...
> 
> > + * shadow stack compatible version of COW (Cow=1).
> > + */
> > +
> 
> ^ Superfluous newline.

Thanks.

> 
> > +static inline pte_t pte_mkcow(pte_t pte)
> > +{
> > +       if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK))
> > +               return pte;
> > +
> > +       pte = pte_clear_flags(pte, _PAGE_DIRTY);
> > +       return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_COW);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline pte_t pte_clear_cow(pte_t pte)
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * _PAGE_COW is unnecessary on !X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK
> > kernels.
> 
> I'm guessing this "unnecessary" is supposed to mean that on kernels
> not
> supporting shadow stack, a COW page uses the old bit flags?
> 
> I.e., Dirty=1,Write=0?
> 
> Might as well write it this way to be perfectly clear.

Right, I can clarify.

> 
> > +        * See the _PAGE_COW definition for more details.
> > +        */
> > +       if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_SHSTK))
> > +               return pte;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * PTE is getting copied-on-write, so it will be dirtied
> > +        * if writable, or made shadow stack if shadow stack and
> > +        * being copied on access. Set they dirty bit for both
> 
> "Set the dirty bit.."

Oof.

> 
> > +        * cases.
> > +        */
> > +       pte = pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_DIRTY);
> > +       return pte_clear_flags(pte, _PAGE_COW);
> > +}
> 
> Rest looks ok.

Thanks.

> 
> Thx.
>