[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D6EB652-3271-485E-A15B-0AE0FA98DFC7@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:54:51 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
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>,
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,
david@...hat.com, debug@...osinc.com
CC: rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 27/41] x86/mm: Warn if create Write=0,Dirty=1 with raw prot
On February 27, 2023 2:29:43 PM PST, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>When user shadow stack is use, Write=0,Dirty=1 is treated by the CPU as
>shadow stack memory. So for shadow stack memory this bit combination is
>valid, but when Dirty=1,Write=1 (conventionally writable) memory is being
>write protected, the kernel has been taught to transition the Dirty=1
>bit to SavedDirty=1, to avoid inadvertently creating shadow stack
>memory. It does this inside pte_wrprotect() because it knows the PTE is
>not intended to be a writable shadow stack entry, it is supposed to be
>write protected.
>
>However, when a PTE is created by a raw prot using mk_pte(), mk_pte()
>can't know whether to adjust Dirty=1 to SavedDirty=1. It can't
>distinguish between the caller intending to create a shadow stack PTE or
>needing the SavedDirty shift.
>
>The kernel has been updated to not do this, and so Write=0,Dirty=1
>memory should only be created by the pte_mkfoo() helpers. Add a warning
>to make sure no new mk_pte() start doing this.
>
>Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
>Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
>Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@...nel.org>
>Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists