[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZNZPLTky6IZ47n4l@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:09:33 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"Rick P. Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/36] arm64/mm: Handle GCS data aborts
On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:00:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> @@ -510,6 +527,26 @@ static vm_fault_t __do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
> */
> if (!(vma->vm_flags & vm_flags))
> return VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
> +
> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHADOW_STACK) {
> + /*
> + * Writes to a GCS must either be generated by a GCS
> + * operation or be from EL1.
> + */
> + if (is_write_abort(esr) &&
> + !(is_gcs_fault(esr) || is_el1_data_abort(esr)))
> + return VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
Related to my PIE permissions comment: when do we have a valid EL1 data
write abort that's not a GCS fault? Does a faulting GCSSTTR set the
ESR_ELx_GCS bit?
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * GCS faults should never happen for pages that are
> + * not part of a GCS and the operation being attempted
> + * can never succeed.
> + */
> + if (is_gcs_fault(esr))
> + return VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
If one does a GCS push/store to a non-GCS page, do we get a GCS fault or
something else? I couldn't figure out from the engineering spec. If the
hardware doesn't generate such exceptions, we might as well remove this
'else' branch. But maybe it does generate a GCS-specific fault as you
added a similar check in is_invalid_el0_gcs_access().
> @@ -595,6 +644,19 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> if (!vma)
> goto lock_mmap;
>
> + /*
> + * We get legitimate write faults for GCS pages from GCS
> + * operations and from EL1 writes to EL0 pages but just plain
What are the EL1 writes to the shadow stack? Would it not use
copy_to_user_gcs()?
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists