linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: VMAP_STACK overflow detection thread-safe

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: <CAJF2gTRFvSvEvQeDugdp73o7w4ArdtQ99JScEbLkaLnFcftVcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 23:06:12 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>, palmer@...belt.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: VMAP_STACK overflow detection thread-safe

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:19 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Deepak,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:48:45AM -0800, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > commit 31da94c25aea ("riscv: add VMAP_STACK overflow detection") added
> > support for CONFIG_VMAP_STACK. If overflow is detected, CPU switches to
> > `shadow_stack` temporarily before switching finally to per-cpu
> > `overflow_stack`.
> >
> > If two CPUs/harts are racing and end up in over flowing kernel stack, one
> > or both will end up corrupting each other state because `shadow_stack` is
> > not per-cpu. This patch optimizes per-cpu overflow stack switch by
> > directly picking per-cpu `overflow_stack` and gets rid of `shadow_stack`.
>
> Are you planning on resending this patch? I see it didn't gain much
> traction last time, but this looks like a much cleaner solution for
> selecting the overflow stack than having a `shadow_stack` and calling
> to C to compute the per-CPU offset. The asm_per_cpu macro also would
> come in handy when implementing CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK, which we'd
> like to have on RISC-V too.
I remember we ended up with an atomic lock mechanism instead of percpu
offset, so what's the benefit of percpu style in overflow_stack path?

>
> Sami



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren