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: <672fa390-c88c-4e2a-aa42-52d171acfd62@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 16:13:45 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 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>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        joao.moreira@...el.com, John Allen <john.allen@....com>,
        kcc@...gle.com, eranian@...gle.com
Cc:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/35] x86/mm: Remove _PAGE_DIRTY from kernel RO pages

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.

> 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.

> 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.