[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc43d304-e24b-40fd-9205-fd27889e6a24@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:38:12 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Szabolcs.Nagy@....com" <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"bristot@...hat.com" <bristot@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v5 4/7] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:18:11PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 00:05 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > + if (write_user_shstk_64((u64 __user *)addr, 0))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> So, don't we want to consume the token on the *new* task's MM, which
> was already duplicated but still unmapped? In which case I think the
> other arch's would need to GUP regardless of the existence of shadow
> stack atomic ops.
Yes, that would be better - if nothing else it allows reuse of the same
shadow stack for multiple !CLONE_VM clone3()s.
> I wonder about adding a shstk_post_fork() to make it easier to think
> about and maintain, even if there are no issues today.
I agree.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists