[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9344cd90-1818-a716-91d2-2b85df01347b@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:19:28 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"'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>,
"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
On 1/21/21 2:16 PM, David Laight wrote:
> 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?
It could shift it off either end since there are both
<< and >>.
> There is only an |= against the target.
>
> Something horrid with ^= might set and clear.
--
~Randy
"He closes his eyes and drops the goggles. You can't get hurt
by looking at a bitmap. Or can you?"
(Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists