[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210409153146.ib2xsn7n2q4ixpde@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:31:46 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: 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-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 19/30] mm: Update can_follow_write_pte() for shadow
stack
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:10:53PM -0700, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> Can_follow_write_pte() ensures a read-only page is COWed by checking the
> FOLL_COW flag, and uses pte_dirty() to validate the flag is still valid.
>
> Like a writable data page, a shadow stack page is writable, and becomes
> read-only during copy-on-write, but it is always dirty. Thus, in the
> can_follow_write_pte() check, it belongs to the writable page case and
> should be excluded from the read-only page pte_dirty() check. Apply
> the same changes to can_follow_write_pmd().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> v24:
> - Change arch_shadow_stack_mapping() to is_shadow_stack_mapping().
>
> mm/gup.c | 8 +++++---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 8 +++++---
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index e40579624f10..c313cc988865 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -356,10 +356,12 @@ static int follow_pfn_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> * FOLL_FORCE can write to even unwritable pte's, but only
> * after we've gone through a COW cycle and they are dirty.
> */
> -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,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> return pte_write(pte) ||
> - ((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_dirty(pte));
> + ((flags & FOLL_FORCE) && (flags & FOLL_COW) && pte_dirty(pte) &&
> + !is_shadow_stack_mapping(vma->vm_flags));
It's getting too ugly. I think it deserve to be rewritten. What about:
if (pte_write(pte))
return true;
if ((flags & (FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_COW)) != (FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_COW))
return false;
if (!pte_dirty(pte))
return false;
if (is_shadow_stack_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
return false;
return true;
?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists