[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cd9d04ab66d144b7942b5030d9813115@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 22:16:08 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "'Yu, Yu-cheng'" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Eugene Syromiatnikov" <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"Weijiang Yang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v17 08/26] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_COW
From: Yu, Yu-cheng
>
> On 1/21/2021 10:44 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 01:30:35PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> [...]
> >> @@ -343,6 +349,16 @@ static inline pte_t pte_mkold(pte_t pte)
> >>
> >> static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
> >> {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Blindly clearing _PAGE_RW might accidentally create
> >> + * a shadow stack PTE (RW=0, Dirty=1). Move the hardware
> >> + * dirty value to the software bit.
> >> + */
> >> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
> >> + pte.pte |= (pte.pte & _PAGE_DIRTY) >> _PAGE_BIT_DIRTY << _PAGE_BIT_COW;
> >
> > Why the unreadable shifting when you can simply do:
> >
> > if (pte.pte & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> > pte.pte |= _PAGE_COW;
> >
> > ?
>
> It clears _PAGE_DIRTY and sets _PAGE_COW. That is,
>
> if (pte.pte & _PAGE_DIRTY) {
> pte.pte &= ~_PAGE_DIRTY;
> pte.pte |= _PAGE_COW;
> }
>
> So, shifting makes resulting code more efficient.
Does the compiler manage to do one shift?
How can it clear anything?
There is only an |= against the target.
Something horrid with ^= might set and clear.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists