[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6IpKb6pPvYy43NO@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:29:13 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...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>,
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>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
John Allen <john.allen@....com>, kcc@...gle.com,
eranian@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
dethoma@...rosoft.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, christina.schimpe@...el.com,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/39] x86/mm: Introduce _PAGE_COW
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> There are six bits left available to software in the 64-bit PTE after
> consuming a bit for _PAGE_COW. No space is consumed in 32-bit kernels
> because shadow stacks are not enabled there.
>
> This is a prepratory patch. Changes to actually start marking _PAGE_COW
Unknown word [prepratory] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['preparatory',
> will follow once other pieces are in place.
And regardless, you don't really need this sentence at all, AFAICT.
...
> +/*
> + * Normally COW memory can result in Dirty=1,Write=0 PTs. But in the case
^^^
PTEs.
> + * of X86_FEATURE_USER_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
Unknown word [conventially] in comment.
Suggestions: ['conventionally', ...
> + * shadow stack compatible version of COW (Cow=1).
> + */
> +
^ Superfluous newline.
> +static inline pte_t pte_mkcow(pte_t pte)
> +{
> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_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_USER_SHSTK kernels.
I'm guessing this "unnecessary" is supposed to mean that on kernels not
supporting shadow stack, a COW page uses the old bit flags?
I.e., Dirty=1,Write=0?
Might as well write it this way to be perfectly clear.
> + * See the _PAGE_COW definition for more details.
> + */
> + if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_USER_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
"Set the dirty bit.."
> + * cases.
> + */
> + pte = pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_DIRTY);
> + return pte_clear_flags(pte, _PAGE_COW);
> +}
Rest looks ok.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists