linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/35] x86/mm: Remove _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]

Message-ID: <bdb2711ae5ff0fc204ffcfd8ddccf3c2e105f297.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 22:52:29 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Dave.Martin@....com" <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/35] x86/mm: Remove _PAGE_DIRTY from kernel RO pages

On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 16:13 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/30/22 13:18, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > The x86 family of processors do not directly create read-only and
> > Dirty
> > PTEs.  These PTEs are created by software.
> 
> That's not strictly correct.
> 
> There's nothing in the architecture today to prevent the CPU from
> creating Write=0,Dirty=1 PTEs.  In fact, some CPUs do this in weird
> situations.  It wouldn't be wrong to say:
> 
> 	Processors sometimes directly create read-only and Dirty PTEs.
> 
> which is the opposite of what is written above.  This is why the CET
> spec has the blurb about shadow-stack-supporting CPUs promise not to
> do
> this any more.

Yea, it's wrong. The whole point of the new assurance is that it could
before as you say.

> 
> > One such case is that kernel
> > read-only pages are historically setup as Dirty.
> 
> 				   ^ set up
> 
> > New processors that support Shadow Stack regard read-only and Dirty
> > PTEs as
> > shadow stack pages.
> 
> This also isn't *quite* correct.  It's not just having a new
> processor,
> it includes enabling shadow stacks.

Right.

> 
> > This results in ambiguity between shadow stack and kernel read-only
> > pages.  To resolve this, removed Dirty from kernel read- only
> > pages.
> 
> One thing that's not clear from the spec: does this cause an *actual*
> problem?  For instance, does setting:
> 
> 	IA32_U_CET.SH_STK_EN=1
> but
> 	IA32_S_CET.SH_STK_EN=0
> 
> means that shadow stacks are enforced in user *MODE* or on
> user-paging-permission (U=0) PTEs?
> 
> I think it's modes, but it would be nice to be clear.  *BUT*, if this
> is
> accurate, doesn't it also mean that this patch is not strictly
> necessary?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the patch is probably still a good idea, but
> let's
> make sure we get the exact reasoning clear.

Yea, I think this is just a tying up loose ends thing. It is not
functionally needed until there would be shadow stack mode for kernel.
I'll update the patch to make this clear.