linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/39] x86/mm: Introduce _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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 23:54:07 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc:     "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...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>,
        "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...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>,
        "dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.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>,
        "jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
        "rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/39] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_COW

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:36 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-10-03 at 19:26 +0300, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:29:07PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Normally the Dirty bit is used to denote COW memory on x86. But
> > > + * in the case of X86_FEATURE_SHSTK, the software COW bit is used,
> > > + * since the Dirty=1,Write=0 will result in the memory being
> > > treated
> > > + * as shaodw stack by the HW. So when creating COW memory, a
> > > software
> > > + * bit is used _PAGE_BIT_COW. The following functions pte_mkcow()
> > > and
> > > + * pte_clear_cow() take a PTE marked conventially COW (Dirty=1)
> > > and
> > > + * transition it to the shadow stack compatible version of COW
> > > (Cow=1).
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +static inline pte_t pte_mkcow(pte_t pte)
> > > +{
> > > +     if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > > +             return pte;
> > > +
> > > +     pte = pte_clear_flags(pte, _PAGE_DIRTY);
> > > +     return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_COW);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline pte_t pte_clear_cow(pte_t pte)
> > > +{
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * _PAGE_COW is unnecessary on !X86_FEATURE_SHSTK kernels.
> > > +      * See the _PAGE_COW definition for more details.
> > > +      */
> > > +     if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))
> > > +             return pte;
> > > +
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * PTE is getting copied-on-write, so it will be dirtied
> > > +      * if writable, or made shadow stack if shadow stack and
> > > +      * being copied on access. Set they dirty bit for both
> > > +      * cases.
> > > +      */
> > > +     pte = pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_DIRTY);
> > > +     return pte_clear_flags(pte, _PAGE_COW);
> > > +}
> >
> > These X86_FEATURE_SHSTK checks make me uneasy. Maybe use the
> > _PAGE_COW
> > logic for all machines with 64-bit entries. It will get you much more
> > coverage and more universal rules.
>
> Yes, I didn't like them either at first. The reasoning originally was
> that _PAGE_COW is a bit more work and it might show up for some
> benchmark.
>
> Looking at this again though, it is just a few more operations on
> memory that is already getting touched either way. It must be a very
> tiny amount of impact if any. I'm fine removing them. Having just one
> set of logic around this would make it easier to reason about.
>
> Dave, any thoughts on this?

But the rules wouldn't actually be universal - you'd still have to
look at X86_FEATURE_SHSTK in code that wants to figure out whether a
PTE is shadow stack (on a newer CPU) or readonly dirty (on an older
CPU that can set dirty bits on non-present PTEs), right?