[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230613001108.3040476-19-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:10:44 -0700
From: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: 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, szabolcs.nagy@....com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, broonie@...nel.org
Cc: rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH v9 18/42] x86/mm: Warn if create Write=0,Dirty=1 with raw prot
When user shadow stack is in 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, like, for example,
set_memory_rox() did.
Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>
Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@....com>
Tested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
---
v9:
- Always do the check since 32 bit now supports SavedDirty
---
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 89cfa93d0ad6..5383f7282f89 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -1032,7 +1032,14 @@ static inline unsigned long pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd)
* (Currently stuck as a macro because of indirect forward reference
* to linux/mm.h:page_to_nid())
*/
-#define mk_pte(page, pgprot) pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), (pgprot))
+#define mk_pte(page, pgprot) \
+({ \
+ pgprot_t __pgprot = pgprot; \
+ \
+ WARN_ON_ONCE((pgprot_val(__pgprot) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_RW)) == \
+ _PAGE_DIRTY); \
+ pfn_pte(page_to_pfn(page), __pgprot); \
+})
static inline int pmd_bad(pmd_t pmd)
{
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists