Message-ID: <CAHVXubhS3CJ87DxC+9+8z6CiWDV1bQ8nK+iOZUDvMiT7vszFLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:59:30 +0200
From: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
To: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, 
	broonie@...nel.org, Szabolcs.Nagy@....com, kito.cheng@...ive.com, 
	keescook@...omium.org, ajones@...tanamicro.com, conor.dooley@...rochip.com, 
	cleger@...osinc.com, atishp@...shpatra.org, bjorn@...osinc.com, 
	samuel.holland@...ive.com, conor@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, palmer@...belt.com, 
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, 
	oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, 
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	lstoakes@...il.com, shuah@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, 
	andy.chiu@...ive.com, jerry.shih@...ive.com, hankuan.chen@...ive.com, 
	greentime.hu@...ive.com, evan@...osinc.com, xiao.w.wang@...el.com, 
	charlie@...osinc.com, apatel@...tanamicro.com, mchitale@...tanamicro.com, 
	dbarboza@...tanamicro.com, sameo@...osinc.com, shikemeng@...weicloud.com, 
	willy@...radead.org, vincent.chen@...ive.com, guoren@...nel.org, 
	samitolvanen@...gle.com, songshuaishuai@...ylab.org, gerg@...nel.org, 
	heiko@...ech.de, bhe@...hat.com, jeeheng.sia@...rfivetech.com, 
	cyy@...self.name, maskray@...gle.com, ancientmodern4@...il.com, 
	mathis.salmen@...sal.de, cuiyunhui@...edance.com, bgray@...ux.ibm.com, 
	mpe@...erman.id.au, baruch@...s.co.il, alx@...nel.org, david@...hat.com, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, revest@...omium.org, josh@...htriplett.org, 
	shr@...kernel.io, deller@....de, omosnace@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org, 
	jhubbard@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/29] riscv mmu: write protect and shadow stack

Hi Deepak,

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:32 PM Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 06:31:24PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> >On 04/04/2024 01:35, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> >>`fork` implements copy on write (COW) by making pages readonly in child
> >>and parent both.
> >>
> >>ptep_set_wrprotect and pte_wrprotect clears _PAGE_WRITE in PTE.
> >>Assumption is that page is readable and on fault copy on write happens.
> >>
> >>To implement COW on such pages,
> >
> >
> >I guess you mean "shadow stack pages" here.
>
> Yes I meant shadow stack pages. Will fix the message.
>
> >
> >
> >>  clearing up W bit makes them XWR = 000.
> >>This will result in wrong PTE setting which says no perms but V=1 and PFN
> >>field pointing to final page. Instead desired behavior is to turn it into
> >>a readable page, take an access (load/store) fault on sspush/sspop
> >>(shadow stack) and then perform COW on such pages.
> >>This way regular reads
> >>would still be allowed and not lead to COW maintaining current behavior
> >>of COW on non-shadow stack but writeable memory.
> >>
> >>On the other hand it doesn't interfere with existing COW for read-write
> >>memory. Assumption is always that _PAGE_READ must have been set and thus
> >>setting _PAGE_READ is harmless.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
> >>---
> >>  arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h | 12 ++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>index 9b837239d3e8..7a1c2a98d272 100644
> >>--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >>@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ static inline int pte_special(pte_t pte)
> >>  static inline pte_t pte_wrprotect(pte_t pte)
> >>  {
> >>-     return __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~(_PAGE_WRITE));
> >>+     return __pte((pte_val(pte) & ~(_PAGE_WRITE)) | (_PAGE_READ));
> >>  }
> >>  /* static inline pte_t pte_mkread(pte_t pte) */
> >>@@ -581,7 +581,15 @@ static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>  static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>                                    unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
> >>  {
> >>-     atomic_long_and(~(unsigned long)_PAGE_WRITE, (atomic_long_t *)ptep);
> >>+     volatile pte_t read_pte = *ptep;

Sorry I missed this ^. You need to use ptep_get() to get the value of
a pte. And why do you need the volatile here?

> >>+     /*
> >>+      * ptep_set_wrprotect can be called for shadow stack ranges too.
> >>+      * shadow stack memory is XWR = 010 and thus clearing _PAGE_WRITE will lead to
> >>+      * encoding 000b which is wrong encoding with V = 1. This should lead to page fault
> >>+      * but we dont want this wrong configuration to be set in page tables.
> >>+      */
> >>+     atomic_long_set((atomic_long_t *)ptep,
> >>+                     ((pte_val(read_pte) & ~(unsigned long)_PAGE_WRITE) | _PAGE_READ));
> >>  }
> >>  #define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_CLEAR_YOUNG_FLUSH
> >
> >
> >Doesn't making the shadow stack page readable allow "normal" loads to
> >access the page? If it does, isn't that an issue (security-wise)?
>
> When shadow stack permissions are there (i.e. R=0, W=1, X=0), then also shadow stack is
> readable through "normal" loads. So nothing changes when it converts into a readonly page
> from page permissions perspective.
>
> Security-wise it's not a concern because from threat modeling perspective, if attacker had
> read-write primitives (via some bug in program) available to read and write address space
> of process/task; then they would have availiblity of return addresses on normal stack. It's
> the write primitive that is concerning and to be protected against. And that's why shadow stack
> is not writeable using "normal" stores.
>
> >

Thanks for the explanation!

With the use of ptep_get(), you can add:

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>

Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists