[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180607143705.3531-9-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 07:37:04 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH 8/9] x86/cet: Handle shadow stack page fault
When a task does fork(), its shadow stack must be duplicated for
the child. However, the child may not actually use all pages of
of the copied shadow stack. This patch implements a flow that
is similar to copy-on-write of an anonymous page, but for shadow
stack memory. A shadow stack PTE needs to be RO and dirty. We
use this dirty bit requirement to effect the copying of shadow
stack pages.
In copy_one_pte(), we clear the dirty bit from the shadow stack
PTE. On the next shadow stack access to the PTE, a page fault
occurs. At that time, we then copy/re-use the page and fix the
PTE.
Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
---
mm/memory.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 01f5464e0fd2..275c7fb3fc96 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -1022,7 +1022,7 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
* in the parent and the child
*/
if (is_cow_mapping(vm_flags)) {
- ptep_set_wrprotect(src_mm, addr, src_pte);
+ ptep_set_wrprotect_flush(vma, addr, src_pte);
pte = pte_wrprotect(pte);
}
@@ -2444,7 +2444,13 @@ static inline void wp_page_reuse(struct vm_fault *vmf)
flush_cache_page(vma, vmf->address, pte_pfn(vmf->orig_pte));
entry = pte_mkyoung(vmf->orig_pte);
- entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
+
+ if (is_shstk_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
+ entry = pte_mkdirty_shstk(entry);
+ else
+ entry = pte_mkdirty(entry);
+
+ entry = maybe_mkwrite(entry, vma);
if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte, entry, 1))
update_mmu_cache(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
@@ -2517,7 +2523,11 @@ static int wp_page_copy(struct vm_fault *vmf)
}
flush_cache_page(vma, vmf->address, pte_pfn(vmf->orig_pte));
entry = mk_pte(new_page, vma->vm_page_prot);
- entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
+ if (is_shstk_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
+ entry = pte_mkdirty_shstk(entry);
+ else
+ entry = pte_mkdirty(entry);
+ entry = maybe_mkwrite(entry, vma);
/*
* Clear the pte entry and flush it first, before updating the
* pte with the new entry. This will avoid a race condition
@@ -3192,6 +3202,14 @@ static int do_anonymous_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
mem_cgroup_commit_charge(page, memcg, false, false);
lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(page, vma);
setpte:
+ /*
+ * If this is within a shadow stack mapping, mark
+ * the PTE dirty. We don't use pte_mkdirty(),
+ * because the PTE must have _PAGE_DIRTY_HW set.
+ */
+ if (is_shstk_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
+ entry = pte_mkdirty_shstk(entry);
+
set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, vmf->address, vmf->pte, entry);
/* No need to invalidate - it was non-present before */
@@ -3974,6 +3992,14 @@ static int handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
entry = vmf->orig_pte;
if (unlikely(!pte_same(*vmf->pte, entry)))
goto unlock;
+
+ /*
+ * Shadow stack PTEs are copy-on-access, so do_wp_page()
+ * handling on them no matter if we have write fault or not.
+ */
+ if (is_shstk_mapping(vmf->vma->vm_flags))
+ return do_wp_page(vmf);
+
if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
if (!pte_write(entry))
return do_wp_page(vmf);
--
2.15.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists